2017 (1) TMI 275 - AT - Customs

Valuation - contemporaneous imports produced by appellant, not considered - Whether imports made by the main appellant Gururaj Steel are secondary/ defective stainless steel or prime material or there was any misdeclaration of the description as well as the value? Held that - the adjudicating authority has relied upon some contemporaneous imports details which were not given to appellant and the adjudicating authority seems to have not considered the contemporaneous imports details as produced by the appellant before him. We also find that the adjudicating authority has not recorded any findings on the details of contemporaneous imports as produced by the appellant. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority has to consider the details of contemporaneous imports produced by the appellant and deal with it in impugned order. Having not dealt with it, the impugned order is a non-speaking one - the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority - appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Misdeclaration of description and value in imports made by the main appellant.
- Consideration of contemporaneous imports details by the adjudicating authority.
- Evidential value of contemporaneous imports details obtained from the appellant's laptop.
- Lack of findings by the adjudicating authority on the details of contemporaneous imports produced by the appellant.
- The impugned order being non-speaking.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the imports made by the main appellant were secondary/defective stainless steel or prime material, and if there was misdeclaration of the description and value. The adjudicating authority concluded that there was misdeclaration and applied the value of contemporaneous imports to confirm the demands on the appellant. However, the appellant argued that the contemporaneous price imports applied were incorrect as the authority did not consider the contemporaneous imports details provided by the appellant for a different importer of the same products from the same source.

2. The Departmental Representative contended that the contemporaneous imports details were extracted from the appellant's laptop by the officers, suggesting their evidential value. However, upon reviewing the details presented in the impugned order, it was observed that the adjudicating authority relied on some contemporaneous imports details not shared with the appellant. Furthermore, the authority failed to address the contemporaneous imports details provided by the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was non-speaking and lacked a proper consideration of all relevant evidence.

3. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, determined that the issue required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority to ensure a fair decision following the principles of natural justice. Without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority. The appellant was instructed to cooperate and present the necessary documents to support their case. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of through remand to the adjudicating authority for a comprehensive review and decision-making process.