2019 (5) TMI 988 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - misdeclaration of value - rejection of declared value - valuation of the imported goods was proposed on the basis of value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The matter needs to be reconsidered by the Commissioner on the basis of all the facts and documents on record. Principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT - There is no evidence available on record to show that documents that revenue intended to rely against the appellants were ever given to them. Non supply of the documents relied against the appellant to them before passing the impugned order is denial of natural justice to them. Matter remanded back to adjudicating authority for reconsideration of matter after following the principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Misdeclaration of imported goods, rejection of transaction value, confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, appeal against Commissioner's order, non-supply of relevant documents, dispute over valuation, denial of natural justice.

Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:
The case involved an appeal against an order by the Commissioner Customs regarding the misdeclaration of imported goods. The appellant had filed a Bill Of Entry declaring the goods as "Base Oil SN 300" but the actual quantity was found to be more than declared. Samples were tested, and it was concluded that the goods were misdeclared as they met the SN-500 specification. The misdeclaration led to the rejection of the declared value and the proposal of a new value based on contemporaneous imports of Base Oil SN-500.

Rejection of Transaction Value and Confiscation of Goods:
The Commissioner held that the misdeclaration of goods rendered them liable for confiscation under Sections 111(l) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was also imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. The appellant challenged the order on various grounds, including the rejection of the declared value based on a report and the misdeclaration of goods. The appellant argued that the rejection of the transaction value was unjustified and that the burden of proof lay with the department.

Appeal Against Commissioner's Order and Non-Supply of Relevant Documents:
The appellant appealed the Commissioner's order, claiming that relevant documents, such as the SIIB(X) report and the test report from IOCL Vashi, were not furnished to them. The appellant disputed the valuation determined by the authorities and argued that they had not misdeclared the description and value of the goods. The appellant also contended that the variation in quantity was unintentional and not meant to evade duty payment.

Dispute Over Valuation and Denial of Natural Justice:
During the appeal, it was found that the appellant had not accepted the valuation as per contemporaneous imports of Base Oil SN-500, contrary to what was recorded in the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal concluded that the matter needed to be reconsidered by the Commissioner based on all facts and documents on record. It was also noted that the non-supply of documents relied upon by the revenue against the appellant constituted a denial of natural justice. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of following the principles of natural justice and providing all relevant documents to the appellant for a fair adjudication process.