2023 (8) TMI 751 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - relevant SCN along with relied upon documents including correspondence with Hong Kong- Customs, on the basis of the department s case have not been placed on record - HELD THAT - It is found that the rejection of value by the Adjudicating Authority, and also the basis of setting aside of the order-in-original by the Commissioner (Appeals), has neither been made available by the department nor was filed by the department. It is therefore, for the concerned administrative authorities to take remedial action to ensure that Show Cause Notice and R.U.D s are filed in departmental appeals. Even the grounds of appeal taken by the department indicate that they are relying upon inquiry report received from Hong Kong through the mutual assistance agreement from the department of justice Hong Kong vide letter dated June, 18 2009, but still appeal has been filed without even providing the same alongwith other documents and copy of the SCN. And now at this stage same documents are untraceable. The appeal has been filed by the department after review and authorization by Committee of Commissioners, but even the basic documents like SCN and RUDs including the relevant correspondence has not been put on record. In the absence of such documents having not been made available by the department despite opportunities given, the findings of Learned Commissioner (Appeals) agreed upon and the same is held as correct based upon evidence on record. The appeals of the department are rejected.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment relate to the valuation of goods, specifically the determination of value under the residual method, the reliance on contemporaneous import data, rejection of declared value, and the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act 1962.

Valuation of Goods:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the value declared by the three Respondents, emphasizing the requirement to determine value using reasonable means consistent with the rules. It was noted that the adjudicating authority did not consider contemporaneous import data and hastily relied on quotations from personal devices. The Commissioner held that the declared value should be accepted as there was no evidence to reject it. Consequently, the decision on undervaluation was overturned, leading to the setting aside of penalties imposed on the appellants.

Procedural Lapses:
The Tribunal highlighted the absence of crucial documents, including the show cause notice and relevant correspondence with Hong Kong Customs, in the department's submissions. Despite directives to produce these documents, they were not provided, leading to criticism of the Jurisdictional Commissioner for negligence. The Tribunal expressed concern over the casual handling of international cooperation documents and emphasized the need for proper record-keeping in departmental appeals. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the department's failure to submit essential documents.

Decision and Conclusion:
In light of the above issues, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeals by the department. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 14.08.2023, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and the proper submission of relevant documents in legal proceedings.