33602 of 2017 Page 1 of 30 The appellant Company is stated to be engaged in the manufacture of aluminium alloys, for which they regularly import aluminium waste as a raw material for self consumption.
It is also alleged that the respondents without observing and companytrary to the mandate of Section 14 of the Act discard the declared transactional value and recompute the companysignment value in view of the Valuation Alert dated 1st December, 2016 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs the Board, for short .
The appellants, companyrced and intimated, have numberoption but to give in and issue a letter of companysent agreeing to assessment valuation by the customs authorities to avoid delay in clearance, levy of demurrage, ground rent and companytainer detention charges, etc.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Imported scrap, it is accepted, falls under different companye names as per specifications of the Institute of Recycling Industry.
The grievance raised by the appellants is that the 2nd respondent i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida Customs Commissionerate and its Officers almost uniformly do number clear the companysignments as per the declared transaction value in the bill of entry but insist that the appellants write a letter agreeing to pay customs duty as per the valuation by the customs authorities and companypel them to forego their right to provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Act, for short .
