2003 (9) TMI 448 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Commissioner's action beyond the scope of the order of remand.
2. Dispute over valuation of exported cotton shirts.
3. Lack of disclosure of market enquiry details to the appellant.
4. Commissioner conducting fresh market enquiry without permission.
5. Justification of the second market enquiry in assessment.

Analysis:

1. The appellant raised a complaint that the Commissioner of Customs exceeded the scope of the order of remand by passing an order not in line with the Tribunal's Final Order. The Tribunal had directed the Commissioner to disclose the market enquiry report to the appellant, allow them to submit representations, and then decide the matter based on that. The Commissioner, however, conducted a fresh market enquiry on his own, which was not permitted under the order of remand.

2. The dispute arose over the valuation of cotton shirts exported by the appellant, with the appellant declaring a value of 10.75 US dollars per piece while the Commissioner fixed it at Rs. 50 based on market enquiry. The appellant contended that their declared value matched the purchase order of the customer abroad, highlighting the discrepancy in valuation.

3. The appellant argued that the details of the market enquiry, which formed the basis of the Commissioner's decision, were not disclosed to them. They were also not given an opportunity to cross-examine the persons from whom the market price details were obtained. The Tribunal found that since the market enquiry details were not shared with the appellant, the case needed to go back to the Commissioner for a fair decision.

4. The appellant further contended that the Commissioner, after realizing the inadequacy of the initial market enquiry, conducted a fresh one and based the decision on the new findings. The appellant argued that such a procedure was not permitted under the order of remand, as it did not align with the Tribunal's directions for decision-making.

5. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, concluded that the Commissioner had indeed exceeded the scope of the remand order by conducting a fresh market enquiry and making the decision based on that. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, agreeing with the appellant's contention, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.