2017 (7) TMI 319 - AT - Customs

Valuation - the declared value was accepted while the contemporaneous evidence forming part of adjudication proved that the value declared by respondent was lower - Held that - None of the authorities below have at all examined the contents of the contemporaneous evidence threadbare to adopt to ascertain appropriate transaction value nor called for defence of the respondent on each contemporaneous evidence sought to be used. Their orders are neither un-reasoned nor speaking - respective contemporaneous evidence sought to be used in adjudication should be confronted to the respondent and opportunity of defence against each Bill of Entry should be provided. When declared value is rejected, such rejection should undergo determination of proper transaction value under the codified procedure of Rule of valuation if contemporary evidence is not available. A detailed scrutiny against Bill of Entry shall meet the ends of justice. That not being done, in the present case, the respondent is entitled to proper opportunity of defence, confronting the evidence gathered by Revenue too the respondent for rebuttal. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in declared value compared to contemporaneous evidence
- Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions on current case
- Proper adjudication process and defense opportunity for respondent

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this judgment is the discrepancy between the declared value of imported goods and the value indicated in contemporaneous evidence. The Revenue appealed against an order-in-appeal that accepted the declared value, but the adjudication order showed that the declared value was lower than the contemporaneous evidence, supporting the Revenue's case.

2. The respondent argued that a similar import with comparable evidence in the past led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Review Committee. However, the Tribunal held that each case should be assessed based on its unique facts and evidence, and the rejection of declared value should lead to determining the proper transaction value through the valuation rules if contemporary evidence is lacking.

3. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining each Bill of Entry and its corresponding contemporaneous evidence independently for a fair adjudication process. It was noted that the authorities below had not thoroughly analyzed the evidence or allowed the respondent to defend against each piece of contemporaneous evidence used.

4. As a result, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to provide the respondent with an opportunity to defend against the evidence gathered by the Revenue, ensuring a proper scrutiny of each Bill of Entry and evidence in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed examination against each Bill of Entry to serve the interests of justice.

5. The respondent's reliance on a previous Tribunal decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal was deemed inappropriate by the Tribunal, as each case should be evaluated based on its merits and evidence. Therefore, the appeal was remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass an appropriate order by a specified date, considering the defense and evidence provided by the respondent.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of a fair adjudication process, independent examination of evidence, and providing the respondent with a proper opportunity to defend against the Revenue's claims. The Tribunal stressed the need for a detailed scrutiny of each transaction to ensure justice and compliance with the law.