2001 (9) TMI 112 - SC - Customs

Whether order of Tribunal is correct to conclude that the order of the Commissioner is incorrect, inasmuch as on remand it was required to verify and accept the bills of entry dated 12th August, 1993 and 27th August, 1993 & he has not made any attempt to place evidence of contemporaneous import of similar goods and in flagrant violation of the directions given by it the Commissioner has merely relied on the same evidence? Held that - The order of the Tribunal is wrong and erroneous to the effect of the order of the Tribunal is that the original value of US 4.25 disclosed by the respondent stands accepted. This is contrary to the Tribunal s own finding where it had accepted the valuation as per the bills of entry dated 12th August, 1993 and 27th August, 1993 which was US 22 per piece and US 16 per piece. Secondly, in the order of remand by the Tribunal dated 3rd April, 1996, there was no direction that the two bills of entry dated 12th August, 1993 and 27th August, 1993 were to be verified and accepted. As has already been noticed hereinabove, the direction of the Tribunal in the order was that the Commissioner should get contemporaneous evidence of the value of the goods imported and it is only in absence thereof that the correctness and genuineness of the documents in question had to be gone into. Lastly, the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the order of the Commissioner was based on the evidence which had already been rejected earlier. The Tribunal in the impugned order overlooked the fact that the decision of the Commissioner on remand was based on the import made by the Hyderabad company at US 42 per piece and after giving a discount for the large number of pieces imported, the FOB value arrived at was US 33.6 per piece. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, is obviously contrary to the facts on the record and cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed. The impugned decision of the Tribunal is set aside and the decision of the Commissioner of Customs affirmed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods based on contemporaneous evidence.
2. Consideration of multiple bills of entry for valuation.
3. Correctness of the decision by the Customs authorities.
4. Tribunal's authority in reviewing and overturning decisions.

Issue 1: The respondent imported down converters from Singapore, declaring a value of US $ 4.25 per piece. The Collector of Customs rejected this valuation, considering quotations from other companies and determined the value at US $ 33.60 per piece FOB. The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order, emphasizing the need for contemporaneous evidence for valuation.

Issue 2: The Tribunal found fault with the Collector for not considering bills of entry dated 12th August, 1993 and 27th August, 1993, showing values of US $ 22 and US $ 16 per piece, respectively. The Commissioner of Customs, on remand, relied on the import price of a Hyderabad company to arrive at a value of US $ 33.6 per piece, reducing the redemption fine and penalty.

Issue 3: The Tribunal, in the subsequent appeal, criticized the Commissioner for not verifying the bills of entry and relying on the same evidence. However, the Supreme Court found the Tribunal's decision erroneous, as it contradicted its own findings and failed to acknowledge the Commissioner's reliance on the Hyderabad company's import price.

Issue 4: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and upholding the Commissioner's valuation of the imported goods at US $ 33.6 per piece. The Court found the Tribunal's order to be based on incorrect reasoning and contrary to the facts on record, thereby affirming the Commissioner's decision. No costs were awarded in the matter.