2004 (10) TMI 465 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner for final assessment, consideration of evidence for transaction value, violation of principles of natural justice.

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner for final assessment:
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Original where the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise finalized Bills of Entry and confirmed the demand. The appellants argued that the Commissioner in Visakhapatnam had no jurisdiction as the project import was registered in the Commissioner of Customs in Kakinada. They contended that the Assistant Commissioner was still scrutinizing the assessment and should have been the proper officer to adjudicate. The Tribunal found merit in this argument as the Commissioner did not clarify taking over the proceedings from the Assistant Commissioner. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration.

Consideration of evidence for transaction value:
The appellants presented extensive evidence to support their declared transaction value, which they believed should have been accepted without additions. They pointed out an identical issue in a previous case where the Tribunal's decision substantially reduced the demands. The Tribunal agreed that the evidence provided by the appellants was not considered by the Commissioner, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reevaluation by the Commissioner.

Violation of principles of natural justice:
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner failed to consider the substantial evidence submitted by the appellants, consisting of about 817 pages. This oversight was deemed a violation of natural justice, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner to reexamine the case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a speaking order and instructed the Commissioner not to encash the Bank Guarantee until the appeal's disposal. Additionally, the Commissioner was directed to expedite the decision process within four months after providing the appellants with a hearing opportunity.