2008 (9) TMI 64 - SC - Customs

Allegation that prime quality P.C. sheets were misdeclared as recycled and under valued tribunal while holding that there is no misdeclaration not analyzed in detail whether imported P.C. sheets made from recycled/regenerated polycarbonate decision of tribunal is perfunctory, hence matter remanded for de novo consideration - no opinion on the merits of the case

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CESTAT decisions on misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods.

Analysis:
The case involved a batch of Civil Appeals filed by the Department against the decisions of CESTAT, New Delhi, regarding misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the imported consignments had been mis-declared in terms of both description and value. It was claimed that Prime Quality Goods were undervalued as re-generated/recycled, leading to short levied duty and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Adjudication), New Delhi, concluded that the imported P.C. Sheets were not made from recycled material as claimed, but were Prime Quality Sheets. The Commissioner also determined the correct assessable value based on the lowest average export price from Korea to India. The Tribunal, however, held that there was no misdeclaration in terms of description as the goods were described as P.C. Sheets or Rolls in the documents. The Tribunal did not delve into whether the imported P.C. Sheets were made from recycled or regenerated polycarbonate, which was a crucial point for determination.

The Supreme Court found the Tribunal's judgment to be perfunctory as it did not analyze the evidence on record adequately. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, should have examined whether the imported P.C. Sheets were made from recycled or regenerated polycarbonate. The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgments and remitted the matters for fresh consideration on the issues of misdescription and undervaluation. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and allowed the Department's Civil Appeals with no order as to costs. The Tribunal was directed to hear and dispose of the appeals within six months, with a prohibition on the Department from taking coercive steps during the proceedings.