2023 (11) TMI 623 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of value based on NIDB data - it is submitted by appellant that appellant's import is under a contract and the contract was also not considered by the Adjudicating Authority - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The entire basis for enhancement of the value is one NIDB Data. However, the said NIDB Data was not provided to the appellant during the Adjudication process, therefore the appellant did not get opportunity to defend their case countering the NIDB Data. It is admitted fact that the NIDB Data was enclosed as Annexure A to order-in-original and the same was not provided before passing the order to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant vehemently argued that the supply is under a contract. He also referred to the contract made with the supplier of imported goods. It is observed that the said contract was also not considered while passing the adjudication order. There is grave violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication process and said faulty adjudication was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, in the interest of principles of natural justice and fair play in the adjudication, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order enhancing value of imported goods based on NIDB Data without providing opportunity to appellant to defend case or consider contract terms.

Summary:
The appeals were filed against a common order-in-appeal dated 28.10.2020 where the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the enhancement of value of imported goods by the Adjudicating Authority based on NIDB Data. The value declared by the appellant was increased from 1.42 USD per Kg to 2.20 USD per Kg. The appellant contended that the enhancement solely on NIDB Data without considering factors like country of export, quantity, and commercial level was incorrect and illegal. The appellant was not provided the NIDB Data during the adjudication process, denying them the opportunity to know the reason for enhancement. The appellant's import was under a contract which was also not considered. The Tribunal noted the grave violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process and remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order after affording the appellant sufficient opportunity of hearing and making submissions.

The appellant argued that the enhancement of value based solely on NIDB Data without considering relevant factors and without providing the appellant the opportunity to defend their case was illegal. The Tribunal found that the NIDB Data was not provided to the appellant during the adjudication process, violating principles of natural justice. Additionally, the contract under which the import was made was not considered in the adjudication process, further highlighting the faulty adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals by remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order, emphasizing the importance of principles of natural justice and fair play in the adjudication process.