2010 (8) TMI 1055 - AT - Customs

Valuation - import of LDPE/HDPE mixed granules/powder - assessment on the basis of contemporaneous imports - The quantity of goods imported was 51,000 MTs, for which the importer had declared price of USD 228 per MT, which was enhanced by the department to USD 288 per MT by relying on the Chief Commissioner s Standing Order dated 03/12/99, PLATT prices and contemporaneous imports of identical/similar goods - Held that - This Tribunal, after taking the view that the Standing Order dated 03/12/99 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, did not have any legal backing vis- -vis decision of this Tribunal to the effect that PLATT prices themselves could not be made the basis for enhancement of value, set aside the enhancement ordered by the lower authority - In the impugned order, there is no discussion as to which of the four bills of entry were adopted as the basis of enhancement of value of the subject goods and as to the reasons therefor. In any case, the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the case law cited by the party is not acceptable inasmuch as, in the Tribunals remand order, there was a specific direction to consider the case law - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery application.
2. Provisional assessment without quantifying duty.
3. Assessment of imported goods at a higher value based on contemporaneous imports.
4. Consideration of case law in the appellate decision.
5. Legal validity of Chief Commissioner's Standing Order on valuation of goods.
6. Failure to consider cited case law in the appellate order.
7. Setting aside the appellate order and remanding the matter.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning duty demanded by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The original authority made a provisional assessment without quantifying the duty, which was later demanded from the appellant. The Tribunal decided to finally dispose of the appeal after dispensing with the pre-deposit requirement.

2. The case involved the import of LDPE/HDPE mixed granules/powder. The bills of entry declared a lower value than the one assessed by the authority. The appellate process revealed discrepancies in the valuation based on contemporaneous imports from the Gulf area, leading to a series of appeals and remands.

3. The appellant argued that the appellate authority did not consider the case law presented, including a decision involving similar goods imported from Canada. The Tribunal found that the Chief Commissioner's Standing Order lacked legal backing. The failure to consider the cited case law and reliance on contemporaneous imports led to the impugned order being set aside.

4. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellate order did not adequately address the case law cited by the appellant. The decision was deemed unacceptable as it did not comply with the Tribunal's remand order, which specifically directed the consideration of case law in the assessment process.

5. Due to the failure to consider the relevant case law and the legal validity of the Chief Commissioner's Standing Order, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reevaluate the matter in accordance with the remand order. The appellant was granted a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

6. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not in compliance with the remand directive and lacked proper consideration of the legal aspects involved. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures and giving due consideration to case law in such assessments.