The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that National Import Database (NIDB) cannot be the basis for enhancement of value.
The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that the burden still rests on the department to prove the said allegations. In case the burden is not discharged the statement of the appellant or the payment of differential duty being made by him will not be sufficient waiver on part of the appellant to contest the re-assessment.
The appellant/assessee filed the Bills of Entries for import of Mix lot of 100% polyester knitted fabrics from china at ICD, Tughlakabad. The assessing authority had enhanced the value as was declared by the appellant in those bills of entries. The appellant had paid the differential duty. However, being aggrieved by the enhancement of value, present three separate appeals (per bill of entry) were filed.
The department contended that the proper officer/assessing officer in the present appeals had arrived at the conclusion for enhancement of value after a thorough verification. The appellant voluntarily paid the differential amount of duty after the said enhancement of value. The said act of the appellant amounts to confirmation of appellant‟s acceptance of the said re- assessment/enhancement. Resultantly, in terms of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, the proper officer was not supposed to pass a speaking order.
The tribunal held that no verification/examination/testing of goods has been done by the proper officer to incurr 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 is required under Rule 12 of Valuation Rules has been conducted by the department prior rejecting the said value. Nor any exercise was undertaken as is required under Section 4 of Section 17 of the Customs Act. It is 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.
The tribunal while allowing the appeal held that confirmation of differential duty is, therefore, held violative of Section 17(4) of Customs Act and of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules and hence is liable to be set aside.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Seafox Impex Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 55404 of 2023 – SM
Date: 20/02/2025
Counsel For Appellant: Sagar Rohatgi
Counsel For Respondent: Manish Kumar Chawda
Read More: Customs Dept Fails to Prove Allegations in Illegal Export Against CHA: CESTAT
