NIRMA LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had imported 69,967.34 Kgs of Detal Catalyst at ICD Dashrath and had filed warehousing bill of entry No. 143 dated 3 -2 -04 along with a bond as prescribed under Section 59(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act). The assessing officer was having some doubts about the value of the goods. Even after repeated request of the appellant vide their letters dated 25 -3 -04, 15 -5 -04 and 3 -7 -04, the assessment of the bill of entry could not be completed. On 24 -7 -04, the appellant explained all the queries raised by the Department and also pleaded that the value could not be enhanced as per Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988. The correspondences continued and without giving any reason, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs provisionally assessed the bill of entry on 1 -9 -04 by enhancing the value to the extent of 5.24% of the originally declared value. The copy of the bill of entry was given to the appellant on 30 -9 -04. The appellant approached the assessing officer for letting them know the reasons for assessing the bill of entry provisionally even after a lapse of over 7 months. They were informed by the assessing officer that the said provisional assessment has been resorted to on the basis of evidence submitted by them. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the provisional assessment order holding that for enhancing the value, valid reasons should have been given. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for giving a reasoned order. The department filed an appeal against the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected by the Honble Tribunal. On 5 -5 -05, the department informed the appellant that the impugned bill of entry continued to remain provisionally assessed. Not satisfied with such view of the department, the appellant protested and requested for the finalization of the assessment vide their letter dated 1 -6 -05. Thereafter, on 14 -6 -05, the appellant received triplicate and quadruplicate copies of the bill of entry wherein an endorsement was made by the assessing officer that the aforesaid bill of entry was provisionally assessed. The endorsement refers to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13 -10 -04 and CEGAT Order No. A/283/WZB/05 -C.II/S/206/WZB/05 -C.II dated 11 -4 -05.

(2.) THEREAFTER appellant filed ex -bond bill of entry No. 419 on 21 -9 -05 while the appellants had paid duty, Superintendent demanded interest from 11 -1 -05 to 26 -9 -05 on the ground that goods have to be treated as warehoused. Appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) against demand of interest which culminated into order -in -appeal No. 96/2005 dt. 30 -12 -05.

(3.) THE appellant had imported 18,506.75 kgs of PEP adsorbent at a price of US $ 44.22 per kg. A warehousing bill of entry No. 144/04 dated 3 -2 -04 was filed. The assessing officer assessed the aforesaid bill of entry provisionally on 30 -9 -04 after enhancing the value by 5.24% and the goods were kept in the bonded warehouse on 12 -10 -04. Not satisfied with the enhancement, the appellant filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for passing a speaking order. Thereafter, the goods were again provisionally assessed on 13 -06 -05 at a price declared by the appellant. The appellant filed ex -bond bill of entry No. 465/05 dated 15 -10 -05 for clearance of 16,601.65 kgs of the goods out of the total imported consignment. As the warehousing period had expired, the appellant were advised to seek extension of the said period vide letter dated 17 -10 -05. On appeal against the said letter, the direction was set aside and the assessing officer was directed to issue a demand as per law.