2026-VIL-1774-CESTAT-KOL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1774-CESTAT-KOL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Re-assessment of Classification and Value under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 without Speaking Order - Respondent self-assessed imported ice making machinery under CTH 8438 80 90, the proper officer re-assessed it under CTH 8418 69 90 and enhanced the value, and Respondent paid the revised duty under protest to avoid demurrage - No order was passed under Section 17(5) and no opportunity was given to Respondent to submit documentary evidence - Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the revised classification and valuation, and Revenue contended in appeal that payment of duty amounted to acceptance of the re-assessment - Whether the re-classification and enhancement of value are sustainable in the absence of a speaking order under Section 17(5) - HELD - Section 17(5) requires the proper officer to pass a speaking order within fifteen days where re-assessment is contrary to the self-assessment, except where the importer confirms acceptance in writing. Admittedly, no order was passed under Section 17(5). Importers pay the revised duty to cut down demurrage and other charges, and this cannot be taken as confirmation of acceptance. Respondent paid under protest by a letter and filed appeals against the Bills of Entry, so there was never any confirmation of acceptance in writing. The re-assessment is to be set aside where no speaking order is passed - Non-issuance of an order under Section 17(5) proves fatal to the Revenue's case, and the revised classification and enhancement of value are set aside – The appeal is dismissed - Classification of Imported Ice Making Machinery under CTH 8438 80 90 or CTH 8418 69 90 - Respondent classified the imported ice cream making machines under CTH 8438 80 90, Revenue re-classified them under CTH 8418 69 90 relying on the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 84 and an Advance Ruling, and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification under CTH 8438 - Revenue itself had classified such goods under CTH 8438 in a review order of 2008 and in Orders-in-Appeal of 2012 and 2025, which it did not agitate further, and the later clearance of the same goods of the same importer was allowed under CTH 8438 - Whether the re-classification of the goods under CTH 8418 is sustainable - HELD - There is some force in the point made by Revenue on the Explanatory Notes. However, in spite of the Explanatory Notes, Revenue itself was classifying the machines under CTH 8438, and the classification arrived at in the two Orders-in-Appeal stands accepted. The change in classification was not supported by any order under Section 17(5), which would have enabled Respondent to put forth its defence. Revenue cannot pick and choose the course of filing appeals in respect of the same goods by not filing appeals in some cases citing the National Litigation Policy and filing them in others. Total confusion prevails in the classification of the goods, as Revenue classified them under CTH 8438 in 2008, 2012, 2018 and 2025 and under CTH 8418 in the present imports, and the benefit of such confusion goes to Respondent - Re-classification under CTH 8418 is legally not sustainable, the correct classification is CTH 8438, and the classification arrived at by Revenue is set aside - Enhancement of Declared Value of Imported Goods without Evidence or Following Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Value of the imported goods was enhanced by the assessing officer consequent to the change in classification, Respondent paid duty on the enhanced value under protest, and Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhancement as made without evidence - No order under Section 17(5) stated the method adopted for arriving at the revised value - Whether the enhancement of the declared value can be sustained - HELD - Where no order under Section 17(5) is passed stating the method or procedure adopted for arriving at the revised value, the enhanced value gets set aside on that ground itself. No reasons were given for rejection of the transaction value, no corroborative evidence such as comparable goods or NIDB data was brought forth, and no opportunity was given to justify the declared value. The invoice raised by the manufacturer should not be doubted unless found to be fake or not genuine, and the transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence. Mere acceptance of the enhanced value by the importer does not preclude it from appealing against an arbitrary enhancement. Revenue has not brought in any evidence as to the basis of the enhanced value, and the case laws cited by it are a toothless defence to cover up its shortcomings at the initial stage - The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on valuation are concurred with, the enhancement of value is rightly set aside, and the appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?