Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Anita International vs Commissioner Of Customs on 23 December, 2005
ORDER C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. These appeals are directed against the enhancement of assessable value while subjecting imported consignments to duty. The following table brings out the enhancement carried out:
Sl. Bill of Description of Quantity Declared value Assessed value
No. Entry & Goods
Date
1. 313047 HDPE 16.5 MT US$ 10972.50 @ US$ 11632.5 @
19-12-99 Resin/Granules - US$ 665 PMT US$ 705 PMT
HMA 0161J Injec-
tion Moulding
Grade
2. 219875 Roughly Squared 735 CBM US$ 220500 @ US$ 257250 @
5-1-2000 Teak Log of Ni US$ 300 Per US$ 350 Per
gerian origin CBM CBM
3. 219876 Roughly Squared 735 CBM US$ 220500 @ US$ 257250 @
5-1-2000 Teak Log of Ni US$ 300 Per US$ 350 Per
gerian origin CBM CBM
2. The facts of the case are that the assessments were carried out by the original authorities at the enhanced values without giving any reasons to the importer, for such enhancements. It is seen that the appellant submitted in his appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) that it had sent letters asking for the reasons for enhancement and for the passing of an order of adjudication; but the request was not acceded to. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept this submission for want of proof about filing of such request. He also did not consider whether enhancement of value was justified. He rejected the appeal noting that once an importer clears goods after payment of duty based on the enhanced value, he cannot contest the assessment in appeal. The present appeals have been filed, being aggrieved with this finding of the Commissioner.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the procedure adopted by the authorities is wholly arbitrary and illegal. It is being contended that the clearance of imported goods, after discharging the duty amount, in no way affects an appellant's right to challenge the assessment in an appeal. It is being pointed out that the goods are cleared at the assessed duty only to save demurrage and to ensure that the imported goods do not get held up under detention. Learned Counsel also points out that the enhancement of values on the basis of the PLATT price is against settled law.
4. We have perused the record and heard the learned SDR also.
5. Clearance of imported goods upon payment of assessed duty has no relevance to filing an appeal challenging the assessment. Therefore, the Commissioner was not right in rejecting the appeal on that ground. The enhancement of value also does not appear to be on sound basis. If at all, the only basis for the enhancement is the prices noted in a publication [PLATT]. It is well settled that such prices cannot override transaction values for the purpose of customs assessment. The enhancement in this case is about 10% of the transaction values. That the difference between the transaction values and PLATT prices is small goes to show that the transaction values were commercial. It is also seen that the appellant had pointed out that even while making comparison, the authorities made a mistake inasmuch as they were not comparing with the price on the date of contract.
6. From what is stated above, we are satisfied that there is no justification for enhancement of assessable value in the present case. Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)