9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (4) TMI 80 - SC - CustomsWhether the Tribunal was justified in allowing duty credit at a rate claimed by the respondent under the Passbook Scheme in regard to the import of Vitamin Mixes in favour of the respondent by reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs Chennai dated 5-2-1998 and accepting the order of the Commissioner of Appeals ? Held that - Concentration/percentage of Vitamin Mixes for preparation of Shrimps feed differs from brands/manu-facturer/feed formulae and types of feed therefore the safest material to rely upon would be the actual importation of cost incurred on that type or category of Vitamin Mixes used in the preparation of Shrimps feed by the supplier of Shrimps and fish products to the respondent. Since such material was available and the same was relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. From the above discussion it is clear that the Tribunal has applied its mind to the material available on record and on that basis came to the conclusion that the value fixed by the Commissioner of Appeals was a just value. Unable to agree with the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the finding as to the valuation made by the Tribunal either suffers from any perversity or is not based on the material-on-record calling for our interference. Against assessee.
Issues:
Determining the correct value of imported Vitamin Mixes for duty credit under the Passbook Scheme. Analysis: The case involves appeals by the Commissioner of Customs against a decision of the Tribunal regarding the duty credit allowed for the import of Vitamin Mixes. The main issue is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing duty credit at a rate claimed by the respondent under the Passbook Scheme. The Assistant Commissioner initially valued the Vitamin Mixes at US $8.2 per kg, rejecting the respondent's claim of US $36 per kg. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) later allowed the higher value based on evidence presented by the parties. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, leading to the current appeals. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the burden of proof was erroneously shifted to the Department to establish the value of the Vitamin Mixes. He contended that the Assistant Commissioner's valuation of US $8.2 per kg was correct based on similar imports and publications by the Marine Product Export Development Authority. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel disputed this argument, highlighting that the evidence relied upon did not pertain to the specific imports in question. They emphasized previous court judgments supporting the Tribunal's role as the final authority on factual matters. The crux of the dispute lies in the valuation of the imported Vitamin Mixes. The Department asserts a value of US $8.2 per kg, while the respondent claims US $36 per kg. The Tribunal and the Appellate Commissioner based their decision on the evidence provided by the respondent, considering it more relevant than the material relied upon by the Assistant Commissioner. They found that the quality and composition of the imports differed significantly, justifying the higher valuation claimed by the respondent. The Tribunal's decision was supported by a letter from the Marine Product Export Development Authority, highlighting the variability in the concentration and percentage of Vitamin Mixes used in shrimp feed preparation. This further reinforced the importance of relying on the actual cost of the specific type of Vitamin Mixes used by the supplier to the respondent for shrimp and fish products. Ultimately, the Tribunal's conclusion that the Commissioner of Appeals' valuation was just and based on the available material was upheld, with no grounds for interference identified. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the valuation of the imported Vitamin Mixes. The Court found no basis to challenge the Tribunal's assessment, which was deemed to be well-founded on the evidence presented during the proceedings.
|
