2003 (5) TMI 396 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged mistakes in the common order passed by the Tribunal on four appeals by the assessee.
2. Consideration of specific clauses under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
3. Failure to consider evidence existing prior to investigation, issuance of show cause notice, and order-in-original.
4. Allegations of mistakes in the Tribunal's order regarding the application of Rule 5 instead of Rule 4 and the Commissioner's decision on declared value.

Issue 1: Alleged Mistakes in the Common Order
The Tribunal addressed four applications by the department alleging mistakes in the common order passed on four appeals by the assessee. The first mistake claimed was the Tribunal not considering clause (d) to the proviso under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The departmental representative argued that the clause was not cited in the notice or the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the need for proper citation by the department to apply the law effectively.

Issue 2: Consideration of Specific Clauses
The second mistake alleged by the department was the non-consideration of clause (b) of the proviso under Rule 4(2). The Tribunal clarified that the arguments of the departmental representative had indeed referred to both clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso, indicating that the Tribunal had addressed the relevant clauses in its order.

Issue 3: Failure to Consider Evidence
The third mistake highlighted was the failure of the Tribunal to consider evidence existing prior to the investigation, issuance of show cause notice, and order-in-original. The departmental representative pointed out specific documents not cited in the notices but referred to by the Commissioner in his order. However, the Tribunal noted that no application was filed by the department to introduce additional evidence, leading to the dismissal of this alleged mistake.

Issue 4: Allegations of Mistakes in the Tribunal's Order
The final mistake alleged was challenging the Tribunal's decision based on the application of Rule 5 instead of Rule 4 and the Commissioner's determination on the declared value. The Tribunal found it difficult to comprehend the exact mistake alleged in this regard, indicating a general attempt to question the Tribunal's findings, which could be addressed through an appeal to the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the applications after thorough consideration of each alleged mistake and finding them unsubstantiated or not constituting errors in the Tribunal's original order.