2009 (12) TMI 843 - AT - Customs

Valuation - determination of assessable value in respect of the imports made through different Bills of Entry - Held that - In absence of show cause notice, no head or tail could be made out. We do not find any recorded order passes in adjudication - Finding that Revenue has not brought out any material for contradiction, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned first Appellate Authority - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Determination of assessable value in imports made through different Bills of Entry.
- Alleged discrepancy in the value declared.
- Validity of the decision of the learned First Appellate Authority.
- Use of NIDB data as a basis for enhancement of assessable value.
- Lack of show cause notice and recorded order in adjudication.

Analysis:
The case involved three appeals concerning the determination of assessable value in imports made through different invoices. The Respondents imported goods through three invoices on various dates. Despite waiving the requirement of a show cause notice at the time of import, they requested a personal hearing, which was not reflected in the appeal record. The learned First Appellate Authority allowed the appeals of the Respondents subject to verification, leading to the Revenue challenging the decision through appeals. The Revenue argued that the assessable value should have been enhanced due to a discrepancy in the declared value, but the learned Appellate Authority erred in allowing the appeals.

Upon thorough examination, the Tribunal found that without a show cause notice and a recorded order in adjudication, the basis for questioning the valuation was unclear. The only basis for enhancement was the NIDB data, which the learned Commissioner deemed insufficient in this case. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide any material contradicting the first appellate order. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the decision of the learned First Appellate Authority, rejecting all three appeals of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned First Appellate Authority, highlighting the lack of substantial evidence to support the Revenue's challenge and emphasizing the importance of a clear basis for valuation determination in the absence of a show cause notice and recorded adjudication order.