2017 (3) TMI 130 - AT - Customs

Valuation - goods imported from supplier being a shareholder in the parent company - parties are related or not? - Held that - the adjudicating authority did not take up the adjudication despite submission of all documents - this callous attitude of lower authorities leads to miscarriage of justice as is seen in this case, thus, adjudicating authority needs to be reprimanded for delaying the denovo adjudication despite the documents being produced - matter remanded back to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Loading of the value of imported goods based on the relationship between the supplier and the parent company.
2. Delay in adjudication despite submission of all documents.
3. Validity of seeking adjournment for personal reasons.
4. Consideration of fresh grounds and evidence before the Appellate Authority.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Loading of the value of imported goods
The appeal revolves around the loading of the value of goods imported due to the relationship between the supplier and the parent company. The revenue contends that the transaction value should be rejected and loaded by 20% of the value. The appellant contested this loading on the grounds of merit, which were unsuccessful before the lower authorities. The adjudicating authority's delay in deciding the matter despite the submission of all documents was highlighted by the learned Counsel, emphasizing the need for a reprimand due to the miscarriage of justice caused by the delay. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' inaction deplorable, leading to a remand to the adjudicating authority for a fresh examination following the principles of natural justice.

Issue 2: Delay in adjudication
The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for their delay in adjudicating the matter, especially in a case involving valuation issues. Despite the matter being sent back for re-examination in 2002, the adjudication was not taken up promptly, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely adjudication in such matters and directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh within three months of the order.

Issue 3: Validity of seeking adjournment
The appellant's request for adjournment of personal hearing due to the unavailability of a concerned person was questioned by the Deputy Commissioner, upholding the loading of 20% of the declared invoice value. The Tribunal noted that seeking adjournment for personal reasons should not be a valid ground for non-compliance with the hearing dates. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration, focusing on the principles of natural justice.

Issue 4: Consideration of fresh grounds and evidence
The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original based on findings that seeking adjournment for personal reasons was not valid for non-compliance with the hearing dates. The Commissioner also emphasized that fresh and additional grounds cannot be raised before the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal, however, remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the need to consider all evidence and grounds afresh following the principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of by way of remand to the adjudicating authority, keeping all issues open for reconsideration following the directions provided by the Tribunal.