2015 (12) TMI 728 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Assessee contended that the grammage of paper imported by them is 18 GSM which is different from the grammage of 14 & 16 GSM in case of contemporary imports of M/s. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation Ltd. imported at prices of J. Yen 530 Kg - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) did not give any findings on the letter of the supplier. In the said letter it has been stated that material supplied to the Gujarat Small Industries Corporation is different not only in quality but was produced in a different mill. The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to take this into account and give any findings on the same. He has observed that in case the prices are ridiculously low and unrealistic compared to contemporary imports, the same need to be enhanced. There are no reasons in the impugned order to reject the claim of the appellants that the products imported by them are different from those of Gujarat Small Industries Corporation. Since comparison is being made to goods which are not established to be of identical or similar, we are unable to uphold the impugned order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in import prices and grammage of tissue paper.
2. Rejection of appellant's contentions by original adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Failure to consider the supplier's letter by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Lack of findings on the difference in quality and manufacturer of the imported products.
5. Comparison of imported products with dissimilar goods.
6. Setting aside of the impugned order.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, M/s. Moti Polymers, imported tissue paper at a lower price compared to contemporary imports from the same supplier and country. They argued that the grammage of their paper was different, supported by a letter from the supplier. However, the original adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand despite the contentions.

2. Upon filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant reiterated their stance of no additional remittances and no relationship with the suppliers. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their arguments, leading the appellant to rely on their submissions before both authorities.

3. The learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) supported the impugned order, which was challenged by the appellant.

4. The Tribunal noted the failure of the Commissioner (Appeals) to address the supplier's letter, which highlighted differences in quality and production mill of the supplied material to another entity. The absence of findings on this crucial aspect and the observation on low prices without establishing similarity between the products raised concerns.

5. Given the lack of evidence establishing similarity between the imported products and those of another entity, the Tribunal found the comparison unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside due to the failure to consider critical evidence and the flawed comparison made.

6. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order was based on the failure to address crucial aspects and the unjustified comparison, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant evidence in such cases.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal and the reasons behind setting aside the impugned order.