2001 (12) TMI 184 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the acceptance of declared value of imported material, enhancement of value by the Department, imposition of fine and penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, lack of evidence of contemporaneous import by the Revenue, and the Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the importer's evidence of contemporaneous imports.

Judgment Details:

Acceptance of Declared Value:
The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal accepting the declared value of non-oven fabricated cotton unbranded material imported by the importer at US $ 4.65 mt. The Department sought to enhance the value to US $ 10.68/mt. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the enhancement and imposed a fine and penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the importer's declared value based on evidence of contemporaneous imports at the same value.

Lack of Evidence by Revenue:
The Revenue failed to produce any evidence of contemporaneous import of the same material at the enhanced value of US $ 10.68/mt. They argued that the adjudicating authority's proof based on the cost of raw materials alone was sufficient, but this was deemed unacceptable.

Contentions and Submissions:
During the hearing, the Departmental Representative sought confirmation of the order-in-original, while the importer's counsel highlighted that the importer's evidence of contemporaneous imports was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The counsel referenced the case law of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai to support their argument.

Verification of Bill of Entries:
The Commissioner verified the Bill of Entries through Customs Houses in Mumbai, Calcutta, and Chennai. The findings showed that the importer's declared value of US $ 4.65 mt was consistent with contemporaneous imports, as supported by communications from Customs authorities.

Decision and Conclusion:
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to produce evidence of contemporaneous imports to justify the enhancement of value. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the importer's evidence and no new evidence was presented by the Revenue, the impugned order was upheld. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, confirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to accept the importer's declared value based on the evidence of contemporaneous imports.