Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Guardian Plasticote Ltd. vs Cc (Port) on 3 December, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(126)ECC49, 2008(152)ECR49(TRI.-KOLKATA), 2008(223)ELT605(TRI-KOLKATA)
ORDER Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard Shri S.N. Sinhamahapatra, Learned Advocate for the Appellants. Nobody appeared on behalf of the Respondent Commissioner. The Appellants imported a consignment of 22 M.T. of L.D.P.E. Lupolene Grade Granules. They declared a price of US $ 570 PMT (CIF). The Customs Authorities had a doubt regarding the declared value and on the basis of contemporaneous prices, they proposed the value of US $ 610 PMT (CIF). The Appellants vide their letter dated 21.4.1999 wrote to the Customs Authorities as follows:-
We hereby agree to accept US $ 610 PMT CIF Calcutta for assessment of Duty. Please assess the Bill of Entry accordingly since material will incur demurrage etc. We do not want any Show Cause Memo or Personal Hearing in this regard at present.
2. It is clear from the aforesaid communication that the Appellants did not dispute the proposed value of US $ 610. Only subsequently they have claimed assessment on the basis of the declared value and refund of extra duty. The Authorities below have rejected the claim of the Appellants leading to this Appeal.
3. The main thrust of the argument of the Learned Advocate is that the Appellants paid the duty under protest. However, we find that the Appellants' letter dated 21.4.1999 clearly accepts the higher value of US $ 610 and that there is not a whisper of protest in the said letter. Admittedly the Appellants have also not followed the requirement of lodging a protest with the Customs Authorities nor any such protest has been registered by the Customs House. The Learned Advocate draws our attention to a noting on the back of the bill of entry which reads as 'duty paid under protest'. To a query from the Bench the Learned Advocate fairly states that this noting is by the Appellants themselves. We find that a photocopy of the bill of entry has been produced before us and there is no evidence that this entry was indeed made before the payment of duty and clearance of the goods. The entry is also not counter-signed by any customs official. Such an entry on the back of the triplicate copy of the bill of entry is no proof that the Appellants paid the duty under protest. There is also no explanation forthcoming as to why the procedure laid down for registering a protest was not followed.
4. The Learned Advocate also cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Spinners v. CC-Lucknow in support of his arguments. We find that the said decision clearly holds that enhanced value once settled and duty having been paid accordingly without protes, importer is estopped from challenging the same subsequently. It also holds that enhanced value uncontested and voluntarily accepted, and accordingly payment of duty made discharges the burden of the department to establish declared value to be incorrect. In view of the fact that the Appellants in this case have not established that they had lodged any protest and on the contrary their letter dated 21.4.1999 clearly points to acceptance of the enhanced value by them, the cited decision advances the cause of the department rather than that of the Appellants contrary to the claim by the Learned Counsel.
Accordingly, we are of the view that the impugned order is legal and correct and calls for no interference. Consequently the Appeal is dismissed.
(Operative part of the order with reasons of decision was pronounced in the open court on 3.12.2007)