1997 (9) TMI 636 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer.
2. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice.
3. Valuation of Imported Goods.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer:
The appellant argued that the adjudicating officer, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [C.C. (P)], lacked jurisdiction as the goods were under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (C.C.), Calcutta. The Tribunal noted that while concurrent jurisdiction is legally permissible, the action by C.C. (P) and his subordinate officer A.C.C. (R & I) was invalid as it ousted the valid exercise of jurisdiction by officers under C.C., Calcutta. The Tribunal emphasized that such jurisdictional conflicts should be resolved by higher authorities like the C.B.E & C or the Central Government. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order on this ground.

2. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice:
The appellant contended that the proper course for the Revenue was to follow the procedure u/s 129D, rather than issuing a fresh show-cause notice u/s 124. The Tribunal compared the facts with the Apex Court's ruling in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., noting that there was no prima facie evidence of fraud by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice u/s 124 was not tenable and that the procedure u/s 129D should have been followed. The impugned order was set aside on this ground as well.

3. Valuation of Imported Goods:
The lower authority's interpretation of Section 14 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 (CVR 1988) was scrutinized. The Tribunal found that the transaction value should be accepted unless conditions in sub-rule (2) of rule 4 were satisfied, which was not the case here. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of clandestine remittance or mutual interest between the appellant and the seller. The valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority was not based on 'identical' or 'similar goods' as defined in CVR 1988. The Tribunal sustained the valuation agreed upon by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the appellants, setting aside the confiscation, fine, and penalties imposed.

Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of by setting aside the impugned order on grounds of jurisdictional overreach and improper issuance of the show-cause notice, and by sustaining the valuation agreed upon by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.