Jantan Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. heard both sides and perused the record. the grievance of the appellant is that the consignment of pvc flooring imported from u.k.has been assessed after loading the import value. the declared value of the consignment was about rs. two lakhs. the consignment was assessed at the enhanced value of rs. 6.4 lakhs.2. a perusal of the order makes it clear that the alert notice directorate of valuation which is the basis for the enhancement of the value, did not relate to the present import at all. the alert notice was in regard to undervalued import of pvc flooring from taiwan, korea and thailand. that alert notice had no relevance to the assessment of the appellant's import from u.k. the impugned or der, of course, mentioned that the appellant had accepted the assessment of the goods and this amounted to acceptance of the enhanced assessable value. the order points out that having accepted the assessable value at the time of clearance, the appellant is not at liberty to challenge that valuation. we are unable to accept this position taken by the commissioner (appeals). if the assessee was not aggrieved with the assessment, he would not have filed appeal. the clearance of a consignment to avoid collateral losses in the nature of higher demurrage cannot be held against the assessee and his right to challenge an incorrect valuation denied.3. as already pointed out, since the enhancement of value was not justified, the impugned order is required to be set aside and appeal allowed. we do so. with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.

Judgment:
1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The grievance of the appellant is that the consignment of PVC flooring imported from U.K.has been assessed after loading the import value. The declared value of the consignment was about Rs. Two lakhs. The consignment was assessed at the enhanced value of Rs. 6.4 lakhs.

2. A perusal of the order makes it clear that the alert notice Directorate of Valuation which is the basis for the enhancement of the value, did not relate to the present import at all. The alert notice was in regard to undervalued import of PVC flooring from Taiwan, Korea and Thailand. That alert notice had no relevance to the assessment of the appellant's import from U.K. The impugned or der, of course, mentioned that the appellant had accepted the assessment of the goods and this amounted to acceptance of the enhanced assessable value. The order points out that having accepted the assessable value at the time of clearance, the appellant is not at liberty to challenge that valuation. We are unable to accept this position taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). If the assessee was not aggrieved with the assessment, he would not have filed appeal. The clearance of a consignment to avoid collateral losses in the nature of higher demurrage cannot be held against the assessee and his right to challenge an incorrect valuation denied.

3. As already pointed out, since the enhancement of value was not justified, the impugned order is required to be set aside and appeal allowed. We do so. With consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.