1996 (3) TMI 139 - SC - Customs

Whether Tribunal s opinion that so far as valuation was concerned, the Bombay Collector s order is not relevant inasmuch as he merely went by a concession made by the counsel for the importer was correct? Held that - It is true that the Tribunal has to decide the matter in accordance with law and that it is certainly not bound by the order of the Collector. At the same time, it appears appropriate that the Tribunal looks into the order of the Bombay Collector and say whether it agrees with or disagrees with the findings recorded. In this view of the matter and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, aside the order of the Tribunal under appeal herein and remit the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained herein.

Summary

Issues:
- Valuation of imported goods
- Discrepancy in valuation between different Customs Collectors
- Relevance of previous Collector's order in current appeal

Valuation of imported goods:
The appellant imported goods declared as disperse dyes blue/red, but they were found to be synthetic organic dye stuff. The Collector of Customs, Madras determined the valuation of the goods at DM 62.5 per kg. CIF, confiscating the goods with a redemption fine and penalty imposed. The appellant raised questions in the appeal regarding the valuation discrepancy.

Discrepancy in valuation between different Customs Collectors:
The appellant highlighted a previous order by the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay, where the value was determined at U.S. $ 3.4 per kg for identical goods. The Tribunal deemed the Bombay Collector's order irrelevant as it was based on a concession by the importer's counsel. The appellant argued that contradictory findings by different Collectors create an anomalous situation.

Relevance of previous Collector's order in current appeal:
The appellant's counsel contended that the Tribunal should consider the Bombay Collector's order despite not being binding, as the findings therein are relevant. The Supreme Court acknowledged the anomaly in differing valuations by the two Collectors and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, emphasizing the need for the Tribunal to review the Bombay Collector's order and determine its relevance in the current appeal.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing a fresh disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that the Tribunal is not bound by the Collector's order but should assess its relevance. The interim order for the release of goods was terminated, allowing the appellant to seek appropriate directions from the Tribunal.