P. K. CHOUDHARY:

All the above Appeals are taken up together as the issue involved in all the appeals is primarily as to whether the Appeals filed by the Appellant were correctly rejected by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the Appellant has accepted the enhancement of the value in writing at the time of clearance of the consignment in question.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the Appellant M/s Maruti Fabric Impex, is engaged in the business of importing ‘Polyester Knitted Fabrics of Mixed Colour, Weight and Length’ from China. The Appellant imported a consignment of Polyester Knitted Fabrics and filed 26(Twenty Six) Bills of Entry detailed in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, declaring the transaction value at USD 1.35 per kg, in accordance with the commercial invoice issued by the foreign supplier.

Upon examination, the imported goods were found to be in conformity with the declarations made in the Bills of Entry. There was no allegation regarding the description, quantity or nature of the goods.

The learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant contended that the Appellant is a regular Importer of different kinds of Fabrics and have imported 26 consignments of fabrics from China during the period from 07.06.2019 to 07.08.2019 at ICD, Dadri against negotiated price. It has further been contended that the Appellant had self-assessed the duty correctly as per the respective Invoices. However, no ‘Out of Charge Orders’ were passed. The Appellant made written requests to the Proper Officer to clear the consignments provisionally paying duty on the enhanced value under protest in Order to avoid delay in clearance of consignments and the losses on account of demurrage and detention. According to the Appellant, no cognizance was taken by the Proper Officer despite several written requests made for clearance of consignment on enhanced value under protest. Finally, the Appellant was coerced to submit letters of consent agreeing to assessment/valuation by the Customs Authorities. The Appellant further contended that the Customs Authorities without observing the mandate of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, discarded the declared transaction value and enhanced the value on the basis of the consent letter.

The learned Advocate submitted that since the acceptance letters were not voluntary, the Appellant wrote several letters requesting the learned Assessing Officer to issue Speaking Orders. However, no speaking Order was passed. Hence, the Appellant filed respective Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment made in the respective Bills of Entry. The Appellate Authority sought comments from the Department on the Appeals filed by the Appellant, wherein the Department contended that the re-assessment has been done under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of written consent, therefore, no speaking Order was passed. All the Appeals were rejected merely on the ground that since the Appellant has accepted the enhancement of value in writing, there was no requirement of issuance of speaking Order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, the assessable value determined by the Adjudicating Authority on reassessment of imported goods in the Bills of Entry and accepted by the Appellant in writing was legal and binding on the Appellant.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the letter of acceptance which has been re-produced in the Orders-in-Appeal does not provide any evidence of contemporaneous import and merely mentions that the declared value is liable to be rejected and redetermined on the basis of the data of contemporaneous import. It is further submitted that merely mentioning that the declared value is liable to be rejected and the same is liable to be assessed at a particular price, does not meet the requirement of Customs Valuations Rules, 2007, CVR, 2007 as even for applying Rule 5 of CVR, 2007, several parameters like quantity i