2018 (8) TMI 1408 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Nylon coated and uncoated fabric 60 - rejection of transaction value - enhancement of value based on contemporaneous imports - Held that - During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has vehemently argued that the imported goods were not first/ prime quality but were stock lot of second/ surplus goods. The learned adjudicating authority has not discussed at all on the said submissions vis-a-vis the cotemporaneous import relied upon by him in rejecting the transaction value - also, there is no evidence to show that copies of these contemporaneous imports Bills of Entry have been handed over to the appellant to advance the submissions on the same. There has been violation of principles of natural justice - the adjudicating authority is directed to make available the relevant Bills of Entry and decide the matter refresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of declared transaction value based on contemporaneous imports.
2. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of relevant documents.
3. Appeal for remand to the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Nylon fabric at a declared unit price of US $.2425 per meter. The Customs department found the declared price incorrect and made a provisional assessment. The appellant claimed the goods were stock lot of second/surplus grade, justifying the declared value. However, the department rejected this and assessed the value at US$ 0.89 per meter. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the rejection of the transaction value based on contemporaneous imports was unfair as they were not provided with copies of these import Bills of Entry. This lack of access to crucial documents was deemed a violation of natural justice by the appellant. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of handing over these documents, and the lack of discussion on the appellant's submission further highlighted the procedural irregularity.

3. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention, ruling that the failure to provide relevant Bills of Entry to the appellant impeded their ability to present a complete case. The adjudicating authority was directed to provide the necessary documents to the appellant for a fair adjudication process. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand to the adjudicating authority to address the procedural shortcomings and consider the appellant's submissions properly.