2016 (6) TMI 755 - AT - Customs

Valuation - validity of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand back the matter without going into the ground realities of the fact and merits - Held that - Neither the adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority having acted in accordance with law relating to valuation which is codified by 2007 Rules with interpretative Rules thereon and specific methodology of valuation is prescribed, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to re-adjudicate entire matter afresh taking into account the anxiety of revenue expressed in review decision. Granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, he shall determine implication of every element of cost in respect of related party transaction and arrive at proper assessable value of the imports. - Matter restored before the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-adjudicate the matter and pass appropriate orders - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay condonation in filing MA (COD) application, Stay of the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Determination of value of imports made by related parties.

Delay Condonation in Filing MA (COD) Application:
The appellant's counsel sought condonation of a 15-day delay in filing the MA (COD) application, citing preventable reasons without any mala fide intention. The Revenue did not object to the appellant's proposition. After hearing both sides and considering the difficulties stated, the delay was condoned, and the MA (COD) application was allowed.

Stay of the Impugned Order Passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals):
The appellant contended that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority without a detailed analysis of the facts and merits, contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Revenue argued that certain lapses in the adjudication order warranted a review and subsequent appeal, leading to the remand by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted the importance of valuation matters in related party transactions and disposed of the stay application to proceed with the appeal's disposal.

Determination of Value of Imports Made by Related Parties:
The Tribunal observed that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter due to the absence of certain documents without calling for respective evidence for scrutiny. The Tribunal criticized the failure of the Appellate Authority to settle the valuation issue in accordance with the law, directing the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to re-adjudicate the matter afresh. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a fresh examination considering the evolving economic indicators, changes in cost aspects, and foreign exchange rates over the five-year period since the previous valuation order. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to determine the assessable value of imports by considering every element of cost in related party transactions and to issue appropriate orders by a specified deadline, with strict adherence to the prescribed time frame.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for re-adjudication, directing a comprehensive reassessment of the valuation issue in related party transactions. The appellant was instructed not to seek adjournments except for preventable reasons, with a deadline set for the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to pass appropriate orders. The MA (COD), Stay Application, and Appeal were disposed of according to the directions provided in the judgment.