9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Allegation of under-valuation of imported goods - Determination of assessable value based on different sources - Lack of opportunity for the appellant to review evidence - Burden of proof on the department in cases of under-invoicing Analysis: The case involved an allegation of under-valuation of imported miniature ball bearings. The appellants imported the goods quoting a specific invoice price, which was challenged by the Customs department based on information obtained from different sources. The Customs sought information from Delhi Customs, leading to a significant disparity in the assessable value calculated by the department compared to the declared value in the Bill of Entry. The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Collector of Customs, who determined a higher value for the goods based on information from the Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi. The appellant argued that the assessable value should be based on the declared invoice prices, emphasizing that the department failed to prove under-invoicing, which is their burden. The appellant highlighted the lack of opportunity to review the evidence used in the Order-in-Original and criticized the department for not referring to contemporaneous imports to support their valuation. The J.D.R. representing the department defended the assessable value determined in the Order-in-Original, acknowledging the lack of opportunity for the appellant to review the evidence. The J.D.R. suggested remanding the case to allow the appellant to counter the evidence presented by the Central Warehousing Corporation. The appellant strongly opposed the remand, arguing that the show cause notice lacked a legal basis. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the department failed to establish under-invoicing or prove that the correct price of the imported goods differed from the declared value. The burden of proof in cases of under-invoicing lies with the department, requiring evidence from contemporaneous imports of similar goods. The Tribunal cited previous judgments emphasizing the department's duty to investigate and provide substantial evidence to discredit the declared price. One member of the Tribunal noted that while the customs department did not prove under-valuation, the Collector's reliance on undisclosed evidence undermined the legality of the order. The member recommended setting aside the order and remanding the case for fresh adjudication, with the disclosure of relevant evidence to the appellant and an opportunity to counter it. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, with one member advocating for remand to address the procedural shortcomings and ensure fairness in the adjudication process.
|
