Seafox Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (CESTAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Confirmation of differential duty was violative of Section 17(4) of Customs Act and of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules and hence was liable to be set aside as payment by assessee for the differential amount of duty, irrespective it being voluntary and irrespective that in his statement assessee had accepted the re-assessed value could not be held as waiver/abandonment on part of assessee for the speaking order.
Held: Assessee filed the Bills of Entries for import of Mix lot of 100% polyester knitted fabrics from china at ICD, Tughlakabad. AO had enhanced the value as was declared by assessee in those bills of entries. It had paid the differential duty of Rs. 22,555.99/-, 23,051.53 and 18,525.06 respectively. However, being aggrieved of the enhancement of value, present three separate appeals (per bill of entry) were filed. The government argued that following careful verification, AO in the current appeals had reached the decision for value improvement. Following the aforementioned value boost, assessee willingly paid the difference in duty. The aforementioned action by assessee implied that assessee had accepted the reassessment and enhancement. Consequently, the appropriate officer was not supposed to issue a speaking order in accordance with Section 17(5) of the Customs Act. The issue arose whether the Revenue had rightly re-assessed and enhanced the value of the imported goods without passing any speaking order but based on the fact that the differential duty had voluntarily been paid by assessee ? It was held that on verification/examination/testing of goods had been done by the proper officer to incur the reasonable doubt about accuracy of the transaction value/the value declared by the appellant in the impugned Bill of Entry. Apparently and admittedly no enquiry as was required under Rule 12 of Valuation Rules had been conducted by the department prior rejecting the said value. Nor any exercise was undertaken as was required under Section 4 of Section 17 of the Customs Act. It was only the NIDB data which was relied upon by the department to reject the value declared in Bills of Entry and to re-assess the value of the goods at a higher price. In such situation the payment by assessee for the differential amount of duty, irrespective it being voluntary and irrespective that in his statement assessee had accepted the re-assessed value could not be held as waiver/abandonment on part of assessee for the speaking order. Since the value was not re-assessed in terms of Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, the acceptance could not be considered as the one required under Section 17(5). In such circumstances, the rejection of the transaction value without passing a speaking order was not permissible. Confirmation of differential duty was, therefore, held violative of Section 17(4) of Customs Act and of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules and hence was liable to be set aside.
