2001 (8) TMI 754 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Lack of mutuality of interest between the supplier and the appellants.
2. Validity of the loading of value by the Deputy Commissioner during adjudication.
3. Examination of law on enhancing value and judgment citations.
4. Allegation of under-valuation and lack of evidence for mutuality of interest.
5. Commissioner's order not being a speaking order and failure to refer to cited judgments.

Issue 1: Lack of Mutuality of Interest
The appellant's consultant argued that there was no mutuality of interest between the suppliers and the appellants, despite them being related persons. The Commissioner had not quantified the amounts, and the consultant contended that the limited remand order was unsustainable. The consultant highlighted that the Commissioner failed to examine the evidence on mutuality of interest, leading to a request for an open remand to establish no under-valuation.

Issue 2: Validity of Value Loading by Deputy Commissioner
The consultant further argued that the Deputy Commissioner's loading of value during ongoing adjudication was procedurally incorrect. He emphasized the need for a detailed order or a direction to re-adjudicate based on submissions and judgments cited by the appellants.

Issue 3: Examination of Law and Citations
The consultant raised concerns that the law on enhancing value, especially regarding mutuality of interest, was not adequately considered. He stressed the importance of examining the judgments cited by the appellants, which were not thoroughly evaluated by the Commissioner.

Issue 4: Allegation of Under-Valuation and Lack of Evidence
The consultant reiterated that there was no allegation of under-valuation, only a desire to enhance value based on related persons. He argued that without evidence of mutual interest in each other's industry, the invoice price should be accepted, pointing out various grounds in the appeal to support this stance.

Issue 5: Commissioner's Order and Cited Judgments
The consultant criticized the Commissioner's order for not being a speaking order and failing to reference the judgments cited by the appellants. He advocated for a de novo remand to the original authorities for a comprehensive examination of the lack of mutuality of interest and the acceptance of transaction value based on the cited judgments.

In a detailed analysis, the Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as both authorities had not conclusively determined the presence of mutuality of interest. Citing various judgments on transaction value acceptance due to lack of mutuality, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for a full de novo hearing. The appellants were granted the opportunity to establish the compliance of their transaction value with the Customs Act and the absence of mutual interest with suppliers. The original authority was directed to issue a detailed, speaking order after reexamining all points within four months.