2018 (12) TMI 559 - AT - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - Valuation - rejection of value based on contemporaneous imports - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the certificate issued by the Department of Polymer Science & Rubber Technology, CUSAT which was produced before him. He further note that this certificate was not produced before the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any opportunity to the Department to controvert the findings recorded in the certificate issued by the Department of PS & RT. Further, relying upon the certificate, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original without affording any opportunity to the Department to controvert the said findings which is in violation of Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules 1982. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Revenue appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) decision on declared value of imported goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) decision allowing the appeal of the assessee regarding the declared value of imported goods. The declared value was compared with contemporaneous imports, revealing discrepancies. The importer failed to produce evidence supporting the declared value, leading to the original authority rejecting it under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision based on the argument that the quality of the imported goods was inferior to those relied upon by the Department.

2. The learned AR argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was unjust as it violated natural justice principles. He contended that new evidence, including certificates from the Department of Polymer Science & Rubber Technology and the supplier, was introduced before the Commissioner (Appeals) without being presented to the adjudicating authority. This action was deemed improper under Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, which restricts the introduction of new evidence without the Department's opportunity to examine and rebut it. The testing and analysis conducted were also criticized for lack of transparency.

3. Upon review, it was found that the reliance on certificates not presented before the adjudicating authority violated Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the original order based on this evidence without allowing the Department to challenge it was deemed unlawful. The lack of transparency in testing and the Department being excluded from the process further supported the decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after affording the Department a fair opportunity to contest the evidence presented by the importer.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the tribunal's decision, ensuring a detailed understanding of the judgment.