CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI
PRINCPAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1

Customs Appeal No. 51948 of 2019

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/D-II/ICD/PPG/IMP/208-212/2019-

20 dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New
Delhi)

M/s. Sukhdev Exports Overseas ….Appellant

515, Krishna Nagar, Tehsil Camp,
Panipat, Haryana

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs (Export) ....Respondent

Inland Container Depot, Patparganj
New Delhi

WITH

Customs Appeal No. 51949 of 2019

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/D-II/ICD/PPG/IMP/208-212/2019-

20 dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New
Delhi)

M/s. Sukhdev Exports Overseas ….Appellant

515, Krishna Nagar, Tehsil Camp,
Panipat, Haryana

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs (Export) ....Respondent

Inland Container Depot, Patparganj
New Delhi

WITH

Customs Appeal No. 51950 of 2019

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/D-II/ICD/PPG/IMP/208-212/2019-

20 dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New
Delhi)

M/s. Sukhdev Exports Overseas ….Appellant

515, Krishna Nagar, Tehsil Camp,
Panipat, Haryana

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs (Export) ....Respondent

Inland Container Depot, Patparganj
New Delhi

WITH

Customs Appeal No. 51951 of 2019

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/D-II/ICD/PPG/IMP/208-212/2019-

20 dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New
Delhi)
 2
C/51948-51952/2019

M/s. Sukhdev Exports Overseas ….Appellant

515, Krishna Nagar, Tehsil Camp,
Panipat, Haryana

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs (Export) ....Respondent

Inland Container Depot, Patparganj
New Delhi

AND

Customs Appeal No. 51952 of 2019

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/D-II/ICD/PPG/IMP/208-212/2019-

20 dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New
Delhi)

M/s. Sukhdev Exports Overseas ….Appellant

515, Krishna Nagar, Tehsil Camp,
Panipat, Haryana

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs (Export) ....Respondent

Inland Container Depot, Patparganj
New Delhi

APPEARANCE:

Shri A.K.Prasad and Ms. Surbhi Sinha, Advocates for the Appellant

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of the Department

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing: 06.12.2022

Date of Decision: 21.02.2023

FINAL ORDER NO. 50155-50159/2023

JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:

These five appeals arise out of a common order dated May 24,

2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) 1 by which

the five appeals filed by the appellant against the enhancement of

value in the five Bills of Entry have been dismissed.

2. It transpires that the appellant had filed the aforesaid five Bills

of Entry for clearance of imported goods „Motorcycle and Alloy

1. the Commissioner (Appeals)

 3
C/51948-51952/2019

Wheels 18 inches & 19 inches‟. The appellant declared US$ 18 per

set as the value for the 18 inches Alloy Wheels and US$ 19 per set

as the value for the 19 inches Alloy Wheels. The assessing officer

loaded the value by 1 US$ for each of the Alloy Wheels resulting in

the increase of duty in the following manner:

Sr. Bill of Date Declared Duty Total Duty

No. Entry No. value of the payable Payable after
goods (in Rs.) value
(in Rs.) enhancement
(in Rs.)
1. 9554524 04.05.2017 12,27,318/- 2,98,913/- 5,09,731/-
2. 9554516 04.05.2017 12,34,931/- 3,00,743/- 5,12,951/-
3. 9554517 04.05.2017 12,73,661/- 3,10,824/- 5,27,372/-
4. 9683204 15.05.2017 10,66,744/- 2,63,151/- 5,30,236/-
5. 9683206 15.05.2017 11,56,166/- 2,86,318/- 5,81,267/-

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the customs house

agent of the appellant had accepted the enhanced value on

hardcopies of all the Bills of Entry and duty was also discharged by

the appellant fully knowing that the value had been loaded and so,

no speaking order was passed by the Assessing Officer. The

relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)

is reproduced below:

“I find that the impugned Bills of Entry were assessed

by enhancing the value of the goods i.e "Motor Cycle
Alloy Wheels 18 inches & 19 Inches" imported from
China from declared value of US$ 18 per set to US $ 19
per set for 18" Alloy Wheel and from US$ 19 per set to
US $ 20 per set for 19 Alloy Wheel. The goods were got
cleared by the appellant paying Customs duty at re-
determined value. Appellant has challenged that no
speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act,
1962 was passed in this case during the relevant time
even though the Appellant had written letter to the
assessing authority.

But it is on record that the value of the impugned

goods was found to be declared very low when
compared with the values at which contemporaneous
import of identical/similar goods were being cleared.
Therefore, the assessing authority had the reasons to
doubt the Truth/accuracy of the value declared in
 4
C/51948-51952/2019

relation to imported impugned goods. In this regard,

the Appellant along with the appeal have
submitted copy of department's letter dated
09.06.2017 issued from F.No. VIII(ICD
FBD)6/Speaking Order/Sukhdev/196/17/349
addressed to the Appellant regarding Bills of
Entry No. 9554524, 9554516 & 9554517 all dated
04.05.2017. The letter reads as under-

"The said Bills of Entry were assessed after

enhancement of value as per the investigation
conducted by Customs (Preventive), New Delhi in
the case of import of identical goods and as per
010 No.27 DLI/CUSTM/PREV/ASR/ADC/202/2017
dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Additional
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and as per
the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of
Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 reads with Section
14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the value
loading was accepted by you through your CHA's
representative on hard copy of all the bills of
entry and duty was duly discharged by you
knowing well that value has been loaded as per
procedure, therefore, no speaking order has been
issued in the matter under Section! 7(5) of
Customs Act, 1962."

From the above said letter, it was clearly revealed

that the Appellant had accepted in writing the re-
determined/enhanced value of the said imported
goods through his CHA's representative. In the
said letter, the assessing authority had placed
substantial reliance on order-in-original No.
DLI/CUSTM/PREV/ASR/ADC/ 202/2017 dated
05.05.2017 passed by the Additional
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),New Delhi
in the case of import of similar/identical goods
and as per para 10 (c) and para 12 of the said
order, it has been revealed that the department
had conducted independent market survey to re-
determine the market value of the imported
goods, which was voluntarily accepted by the
importer in his statement recorded under the
Customs Act and had agreed upon to pay the
differential duty.”

(emphasis supplied)

4. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not only taken

cognizance of the letter dated June 09, 2017 of the Department that
 5
C/51948-51952/2019

has been reproduced in the order passed by the Commissioner

(Appeals), but had also taken cognizance of the order dated May 05,

2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs

(Preventive) in the case of identical goods imported by the appellant

at about the same time. It needs to be noted that this order dated

May 05, 2017 was assailed by the appellant in Customs Appeal No.

52191 of 2019 and this appeal has been dismissed by order of date.

The said appeal was as in connection with similar aluminium alloy

wheels of 17 inches, 18 inches and 19 inches imported by the

appellant from China at about the same time. The market value was

determined on the basis of a market survey conducted in the

presence of the proprietor of the appellant and as per the opinion

given by the shopkeepers, the retail sale price and the market value

was ascertained, which were accepted to be correct by the appellant

in the statement made on April 27, 2017 under section 108 of the

Customs Act 19622. When the appellant was shown the details of

how the value was calculated, the appellant accepted that it was

based on the value ascertained during the market survey and also

undertook to pay the differential value with interest. On the basis of

the statements made by the proprietor of the appellant, a detailed

order dated May 04, 2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer for

re-determination of the market value and this order was upheld by

the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated May 31, 2019. The

appeal filed by the appellant to assail this order has been dismissed

by order of date.

5. It appears that for this reason the customs house agent of the

appellant accepted the value on the hardcopies of the Bills and the

2. the Customs Act

 6
C/51948-51952/2019

differential duty was also paid by the appellant. As the re-

determined amount was accepted by the customs house

representative of the appellant, there was no necessity for the

Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order. The Commissioner

(Appeals) in the order that has been impugned in this appeal has

also noted that an order dated May 05, 2017 was passed by the

Assessing Officer in regard to similar/identical goods on the basis of

a market survey that was conducted.

6. The manner in which the re-determined value was determined

has been noted in Customs Appeal No. 52191 of 2019. The

submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in the

present appeals have been considered and rejected by the Tribunal

in Customs Appeal No. 52191 of 2019. It is, therefore, not

necessary to consider all the submissions again in this appeal.

7. Much emphasis has been placed by the learned counsel for the

appellant on the letters sent to the Assessing Officer for passing a

speaking order. These letters were submitted by the appellant after

the appellant had accepted the value and the goods had been

cleared on payment of the differential duty.

8. There is, therefore, no merit in the five appeals and they are

dismissed.

(Order pronounced on 21.02.2023)

(JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA)

PRESIDENT

(P.V.SUBBA RAO)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Archana