TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted Different Colour and weight) and has been importing from China. 3. The Appellant in his usual course of business entered into an agreement with the manufacturer for purchase of the aforesaid goods and therefore imported the impugned goods under the following Bills of Entry at the mentioned price: S. No. BOE No. BOE Date Declared Unit Price per kg (USD) Enhanced Unit Price per kg (USD) 1. 8200798 17.07.2020 1.20 1.971990 2. 8480375 14.08.2020 1.25 1.85 3. 8479249 14.08.2020 1.25 1.85 4. 8514557 18.08.2020 1.25 1.85 5. 8654862 31.08.2020 1.30 1.829419 6. 8976468 28.09.2020 1.30 1.844 7. 9435872 03.11.2020 1.11 1.626 8. 9435861 03.11.2020 1.113326 1.626 4. On arrival of the goods, the Appellant filed the aforementioned Bills of Entry for clearance of above said goods and submitted all the desired documents. On examination, the goods were found as per declarations, however, on comparison with the contemporaneous import data the department raised a query and the Appellant was asked to provide complete description of the consignment like compos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luation by the Customs Authorities. The Appellant further contended that the Customs Authorities without observing the mandate of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, discarded the declared transaction value and enhanced the value on the basis of the consent letter. 9. The learned Advocate submitted that since the acceptance letters were not voluntary, the Appellant wrote several letters requesting the learned Assessing Officer to issue Speaking Order. However, no speaking Order was passed. Hence, the Appellant filed respective Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment made in the respective Bills of Entry. The Appellate Authority sought comments from the Department on the Appeals filed by the Appellant wherein the Department contended that the re-assessment has been done under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of written consent, therefore, no speaking Order was passed. All the Appeals were rejected merely on the ground that since the Appellant has accepted the enhancement of value in writing there was no requirement of issuance of speaking Order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the assessable value determined b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Hon'ble CESTAT allowed the Appeals holding that once letter of acceptance has been submitted, the importers cannot question the assessment later on. The said importer 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. 13. The learned Advocate further submitted that the mandate of Rule 12(2) of CVR, 2007 to intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth of accuracy of the declared value cannot be undermined. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has held that the said mandate of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 12 cannot be ignored or waived. Formation of opinion regarding reasonable doubt as to the truth or accuracy of the valuation and communication of the said ground to the importer is mandatory. The Supreme Court has deprecated the act of bypassing and circumventing the statutory mandate as un-acceptable and therefore, the proper officer was duty bound....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f India & Anr. Hence, according to the Departmental Authorized Representative, there is no infirmity in the Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 16. The learned Advocate for the Appellant, in rejoinder, submitted that the issues in M/s S. S. Overseas & Ors. were entirely different in as much as it was the case of provisional assessment and non-issuance of Speaking Orders, while finalizing the Bills of Entry. In any case, the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was merely dismissal of the SLP which does not operate as merger with the Order of the High Court. In this regard, the learned Advocate relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359. 17. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 18. We find that the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) merely proceeded on the ground that the Appellant had accepted the enhancement of value under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, there was no requirement of issuance of Speaking Order. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the judgment of Century Metal Recycling (supra) for rejecting the Appeal, more....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certain reasons' can be deciphered from the assessment/valuation Order, whether mis-description or false declaration was apparent, etc." 19. We find that in the Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. (supra) facts were similar to the present case in as much as in that case too repeated requests for provisional assessment by the importer were ignored and the importer was forced to submit letter of acceptance. We further find that although the letter of acceptance states that the ground for rejection of the declared value has been narrated to the Appellant and that details of contemporaneous import of similar and identical goods have been shown to them and on the basis of which, the Appellant accepted that their value were significantly lower than the value at which identical/similar goods imported at or about the same time in comparable commercial transactions were assessed at other ports of the country, however, no such details of alleged contemporaneous import data have been mentioned, therein. Given the language as noted in some of the letters as written by the appellant and placed above, there is a wide gap which has not been bridged by the Revenue, in the matter. The contents of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 harboured by the proper officer cannot possibly be interpreted or construed as detracting from or depriving the importer of the right to question the decision of the proper officer in accordance with law. The right to question the correctness of the decision of the proper officer, be it with respect to the formation of opinion or even on merits, is one which is protected by statute. The question, which as a sequitur, arises is whether that right itself can be said to have been abandoned." 21. The learned Advocate has further drawn our attention to the finding of the Hon'ble High Court on the issue as to whether the declared value can be rejected merely on the basis of NIDB data. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- "104. ....