AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Revenue has filed this appeal against order in appeal dated 18.2.2014 in terms of which the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the original
adjudicating authority (assessing officer) to issue a speaking order regarding the value adopted in respect of goods imported under Bill of Entry No.
2205629 dated 22.5.2013. The Revenue has filed appeal on the ground that the value was loaded by 20% automatically taken by the computer system
in terms of SVB Order dated 27.8.2010 and that the impugned order cannot be implemented as loading was one by the computer system in terms of
the said SVB order dated 27.8.2010 and there was no assessing officer per se.
We have considered the Revenue’s contentions. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in para-4 & 5 of the impugned order has observed
as under :
“4. I have carefully gone through the said order, contents of appeal and oral submissions, I find that the appellant has preferred an
appeal against the assessment carried out in the subject Bill of Entry. Mere perusal f the bill of entry does not throw any light on the reason
for loading of value or the reason for valuation adopted in the instant case. The appellant informs that the loading of value has been
undertaken, because of an assessment order of SV issue at Mumbai.
Since the matter involves clarification regarding value adopted, in this case, the respondent and assessing officer is directed to issue a
speaking order, regarding value adopted in this case, as per ratio of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.â€
As the value of the goods was loaded by 20%, the Respondents right for a speaking order cannot be snatched away merely on the ground that it (i.e.
the loading) was done automatically by the computer system. Thus, the impugned order requiring issuance of “a speaking order regarding the value
adopted in this case as per ratio of Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962†does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Revenue’s appeal is
therefore rejected.