2011 (4) TMI 361 - AT - Customs

Assessable value of imported goods - enhancement of redemption fine and penalty - the dispute relates to the valuation granules imported by the appellant and declared by them as LLDPE/PP plant sweeping - the fact that there is no evidence produced by the Revenue for enhancement of the value and there is no evidence of any flow back to the customer of the goods, it is stand contended before us that the Revenue had drawn samples from the consignments in question and have sent them for testing - However, before the test reports could be delivered, Commissioner passed the present impugned order - find that admittedly the test reports now being provided by the appellant were not before the adjudicating authority - Hence, it is fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for de novo adjudication, after taking into consideration the test reports in question.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, enhancement of assessable value, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, penalty, remand for reconsideration based on test reports

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, involved the valuation dispute of goods imported by the appellant, declared as LLDPE/PP plant sweeping. The Commissioner had enhanced the assessable value, imposed a redemption fine of Rs.7.00 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The Revenue appealed for further enhancement. The 100% examination revealed varying quality within the imported containers. The adjudicating authority accepted the appellant's valuation for LLDPE/PP plant sweeping but raised the value for PP plant sweeping and better quality granules based on contemporaneous imports. The appellant contested the lack of evidence for value enhancement, presenting test reports obtained through RTI, indicating conformity with the declared goods. However, these reports were not before the adjudicating authority, leading to a remand request for reconsideration.

The Revenue argued that statements from the importer's representative admitted to different grades of goods and a deceptive arrangement of containers based on quality. The appellant countered that the statements only acknowledged varying conditions of the same product, maintaining they were all plant sweeping. The absence of evidence showing payment of higher value to suppliers was highlighted to challenge the Commissioner's valuation increase. The Tribunal considered the lack of test reports before the adjudicating authority and decided to set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, instructing the Commissioner to consider the test reports. Both the appellant's and Revenue's appeals were remanded for joint adjudication, ensuring the appellant had access to the evidence relied upon for defense.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the importance of considering all relevant evidence, particularly the test reports, in assessing the valuation of imported goods. The remand for fresh adjudication aimed to ensure a fair and thorough review of the case, allowing the appellant an opportunity to respond to the evidence used for enhancement. The judgment emphasized the need for a comprehensive evaluation of facts and evidence to reach a just decision in matters of valuation and confiscation of goods.