2011 (7) TMI 207 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of assessable value before release of the goods - Natural justice - find from the materials produced as contemporaneous evidence appeared at page 32-37 of the appeal folder, those are one year old to the import date. But the materials on which Revenue based its assessment are also not borne by record. Once such a position exists, this case suggests to be a case for remand to cure defect of violation of natural justice - Therefore, remand the matter to the original Authority to grant fair opportunity of hearing to the Appellant - Confronting the materials on which the enhancement was made and recording the evidence and pleadings, the Authority shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law - Held that the Authority should also look into the aspect whether the goods imported from the exporting country was subject to anti-dumping duty during the material period under any notification - Thus, the matter is remanded to the original authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of natural justice in enhancing assessable value without proper hearing and order-in-original.
2. Discrepancy in contemporaneous evidence and basis for enhancement.
3. Need for fair opportunity of hearing and assessment in accordance with law.
4. Consideration of anti-dumping duty on imported goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the customs authorities enhanced the value of imported goods without providing a proper opportunity for a hearing, resulting in the appellant suffering due to the increased assessable value. The appellant argued that no order-in-original was issued, and the norms of natural justice were violated. The appellant requested the appeal to be allowed in their favor based on the evidence presented in the appeal folder, including the payment of duty based on the enhanced value at the time of clearance.

2. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) argued that appropriate adjudication was conducted when the appellant produced the challan for taking delivery of the goods. The DR dismissed the relevance of contemporaneous evidence and challenged the acceptability of the materials on which the enhancement was based. The tribunal observed conflicting submissions from both sides regarding the determination of the assessable value.

3. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the tribunal noted that the appellant's request for a hearing to understand the basis of enhancement was not granted, leading to an assessment completed without clear reasons known to the law. The tribunal found discrepancies between the appellant's evidence and the basis for the revenue's assessment, suggesting a case for remand to rectify the violation of natural justice. The tribunal directed the original authority to provide a fair opportunity for a hearing, review the materials supporting the enhancement, and issue an appropriate order in compliance with the law.

4. Additionally, the tribunal instructed the original authority to investigate whether the imported goods were subject to anti-dumping duty during the relevant period under any notification. Ultimately, the matter was remanded to the original authority for further proceedings to ensure a fair assessment process and compliance with legal requirements.