AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod from May to June 2019 at ICD Dadri against negotiated price. On arrival of goods, the Appellant filed the Bills of Entry for clearance and submitted all the desired documents. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants are regular importers of different kind of fabrics and have imported consignments of fabrics from Hong Kong/China during the period May to June 2019 at ICD, Dadri against negotiated price. It has further been contended that the Appellants had self-assessed the duty correctly as per the respective invoices. However, no 'Out of Charge Orders' were passed. The Appellants made written requests to the Proper Officer to clear the consignments provisionally paying duty on the enhanced value under protest in order to avoid delay in clearance of consignments. According to the Appellants, no cognizance was taken by the Proper Officer despite several written requests made for clearance of consignment on enhanced value under protest. Finally, the Appellants were coerced to submit letters of consent agreeing to assessment/valuation by the Customs Authorities. The Appellants further contended that the Customs Authorities without observing the mand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce letter of acceptance has been submitted, the importers cannot question the assessment later on. The said importers filed Appeals before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Niraj Silk Mills vs. Commissioner of Customs &Ors. - CUSAA 26/2022. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after analyzing the provisions of law and judgments allowed the Appeals. The present Appeals are squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. 7. Further, it was also submitted that the mandate of Rule 12(2) of CVR, 2007 is to intimate the importer in writing the ground of doubting the truth of accuracy of the declared value. 8. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We have examined the impugned Orders-in-Appeal vide which the Appeals filed by the Appellants were rejected holding that the Appellants had accepted the enhancement of value in writing and therefore, there was no question of issuance of Speaking Order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. From the impugned Order-in-Appeal, it is further revealed that the Appellate Authority sought para-wise comments from the Department and in response, the Department filed para-wise comments and the acceptance l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eptance of the reassessment in writing, the proper officer would stand relieved of the obligation of passing a speaking Order in respect of such reassessment. In all other cases and where the reassessment is not acceded to, the proper officer is obliged to pass a speaking Order. Thus, the waiver or concession is at best confined to the speaking Order which the proper officer is obliged to frame in affirmation of the provisional opinion that it may have formed under Section 17(4). 84. We find ourselves unable to construe Rule 12(2) as contemplating any concession or waiver at least in explicit terms. All that Rule 12(2) stipulates is that the proper officer would intimate to the importer the grounds for doubting the declared value at its request. It is in the aforesaid context that we would thus have to adjudge whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that the exchange of communications amounted to a waiver or abandonment not just of the right to question and assail the reassessment but to impugn it in further proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. 85. In our considered opinion, the perceived concession made in respect of the opinion harbour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments filed in support thereof and the import itself being compliant with any restriction or prohibition imposed in relation to those goods by law. 59. Upon the proper officer being satisfied that the goods entered for home consumption are not prohibited and import duty has been paid, it would pass an order permitting clearance of those goods for home consumption. This flows from a reading of Section 47 of the Act. In terms of Sections 48 and 49, an importer is also entitled to warehouse the imported goods after the same have been unloaded at a customs station or even trans-shipped within 30 days therefrom. The goods can thereafter remain in the warehouse pending clearance for removal. 60. Undisputedly, a self-assessed BoE which is submitted by an importer, if accepted and endorsed by the proper officer, would be deemed to have been duly assessed. This clearly flows from the manner in which the word 'assessment' has been defined in Section 2(2) of the Act and is in any case, an issue that is no longer res integra, bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of ITC Ltd. vs. CCE - (2019) 17 SCC 46. ......... ......... ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ............ 78. The key takeaways from the decision in Century Metal Recycling would thus be the reasonable doubt being based on empirical and legally justifiable factors illustratively spelt out in Rule 12, the mandate to record reasons in support of the formation of that opinion and the mandatory requirement of communicating that material to the importer upon request. ............ ............ 83. That then takes us to the concession which the importer could tender and which would require us to identify the subject in respect of which that concession may be made. When we examine this aspect on the anvil of Section 17(5), it becomes apparent that the statute speaks of the concession being with reference to the reassessment made under Section 17(4). It thus proceeds to provide that in a case where the importer confirms his acceptance of the reassessment in writing, the proper officer would stand relieved of the obligation of passing a speaking Order in respect of such reassessment. In all other cases and where the reassessment is not acceded to, the proper officer is obliged to pass a speaking Order. Thus, the waiver or concession is at best....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a reassessment. However, the host of past precedents rendered on this aspect have come to be overlooked and ignored by the CESTAT which has merely proceeded to toe the line taken in the Advanced Scan Support and Vikas Spinners. We have already taken note of the distinguishing features which inform the aforementioned two decisions. 98. Therefore, the proper officer could not be said to have been relieved of its obligation to pass a speaking order in terms of Section 17(5). The process of rejecting the declared value and reassessing the transaction value is statutorily required to be preceded by the proper officer having drawn an opinion of why the declared value was not liable to be accepted before consequently proceeding to reassess the value. While the said reassessment may not be framed in elaborate terms, it would necessarily have to be reflective of the reasons which weighed upon the respondent to form the opinion that the declared value was not liable to be accepted. ............ 100. Insofar as the aspect of whether the enhancement or re-evaluation of the 'declared value' can be based solely on the data available in the NIDB, in Agarwal Fou....