2023 (7) TMI 488 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - non-woven fabrics of seven different dimensions - rejection of declared value - redetermination of value - enhancement of value on the basis of difference in quantities between the import documents presented by the appellant and the documents obtained through the embassy of exporting country - defence of appellant not considered - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has contended that the appellant have not participated in the investigation and he has not considered the grounds of appeal in the appeal and he stated not to elaborate over and above the findings given in order-in-original - it appears that whatever defence was taken by the appellant, has been ignored and not considered properly by both the authorities below. The appellant can be given one opportunity to present their case with all the details and evidences to rebut the charges of the Revenue - matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order after observing the principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of declared value of imported non-woven fabrics, re-determination of value under Customs Act, 1962, violation of natural justice, gross mis-declaration of quantity, discrepancies in import documents, and failure to participate in investigations.

Rejection of Declared Value and Re-determination:
The Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared value of non-woven fabrics imported by the appellant and re-determined the value at a higher amount under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. This re-determination led to the imposition of differential duty, redemption fine, and penalties based on discrepancies in quantities between import documents presented by the appellant and documents obtained through the embassy of the exporting country.

Violation of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that there was a gross violation of natural justice by both the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) as they did not consider the detailed submissions and documents provided by the appellant. The appellant argued that this lack of consideration rendered the order illegal and incorrect.

Mis-declaration of Quantity and Discrepancies in Documents:
It was found that the quantity of goods imported was significantly higher than the quantity declared by the appellant. Discrepancies in the quantity mentioned in different import documents, such as the Bill of Lading and Packing List, raised suspicions. The verification process revealed a substantially higher value declared to the authorities at the port of export, leading to serious questions regarding mis-declaration and discrepancies in documentation.

Failure to Participate in Investigations:
The appellant failed to participate in the investigations and did not cooperate with the department in finding the truth. Despite serious doubts raised over the credibility of the declared value, the appellant remained silent and did not provide necessary cooperation during the adjudication process. The lower adjudicating authority concluded that the appellant's lack of participation and cooperation hindered the investigation process.

Remand for Fresh Order:
In light of the above considerations, the appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order. The tribunal emphasized the importance of observing the principles of natural justice and providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their case with all details and evidence to rebut the charges of the Revenue. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to ensure a fair and just resolution of the case.