9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to correctness of order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) | Arbitrary loading of invoice value | Invocation of Rule 2(2)(v) of Customs Valuation Rules | Lack of Show Cause Notice | Allegation of related persons | Mutuality of interest | Violation of principles of Natural Justice | Lack of evidence for mutuality of interest | Setting aside of impugned orders Detailed Analysis: The appellant importer contested the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the arbitrary loading of the invoice value by 20% without basis but invoked Rule 2(2)(v) of Customs Valuation Rules alleging control of the appellant company by the overseas supplier through another entity. The appellant argued that they were not given a Show Cause Notice on this issue, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness. The appellant cited precedents to establish that mere shareholding or directorship does not automatically imply related person status. The Tribunal noted that the authorities proceeded without a Show Cause Notice, violating principles of Natural Justice. The absence of evidence for mutuality of interest between the parties led to the appeal being allowed, citing relevant Apex Court judgments. The JCDR defended the authorities' actions, stating that the appellant's non-compliance with document production justified the decision-making process. However, the Tribunal found this argument insufficient to bypass the requirement of a Show Cause Notice with specific allegations. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of mutuality of interest between the parties, as detailed in a previous Tribunal order, and highlighted the lack of evidence presented by the revenue to establish such mutuality. The impugned orders were deemed improper and illegal, leading to their set aside and the allowance of the appeal with any consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the absence of a Show Cause Notice and the lack of evidence for mutuality of interest rendered the proceedings violative of Natural Justice and legal principles. The appellant's challenge to the order was upheld, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the need for concrete evidence to establish related person status. The impugned orders were set aside, providing relief to the appellant.
|
