1990 (11) TMI 248 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Imported video cassette tapes; Assessable value determination; Confiscation of goods; Fine and penalty imposition; Reliance on price list as evidence; Request for remand; Principles of natural justice.

Assessable Value Determination:
The appellants imported video cassette tapes with a declared value of Rs. 87,338, but Customs raised the assessable value to Rs. 1,36,052.16 CIF, leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of a fine and penalty. The dispute centered on the reliance on the Erbis price list and the validity of the 40% discount applied by the Collector on the catalogue price. The appellants argued against the validity of the evidence used by Customs, emphasizing the lack of disclosure of the price list and the arbitrary nature of the discount. The Customs, on the other hand, defended the reliance on the Erbis price list and the consideration of similar goods in valuation.

Reliance on Price List as Evidence:
The appellants contended that the Erbis price list, which was not provided to them, should not be used as evidence against them. The Customs solely relied on this price list for valuation, while the appellants raised objections to its authenticity and the lack of an opportunity to rebut it. The Tribunal considered the omission of providing the price list to be deliberate and noted the impossibility for the appellants to counter it effectively after seven years since importation. The Tribunal ultimately decided not to accept the price list as evidence and refused to remand the matter, citing the deliberate omission by Customs and the lapse of time.

Request for Remand and Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants requested a remand due to the non-disclosure of the Erbis price list and the subsequent reliance on it by Customs. The Tribunal acknowledged the general practice of remanding matters for compliance with natural justice principles but highlighted the deliberate nature of the omission in this case. Despite the appellants' request and the absence of the price list disclosure, the Tribunal deemed a remand unnecessary considering the prolonged time since importation, the lack of addressee information on the price list, and the appellants' inability to effectively challenge the evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, ruling that the impugned order was not based on sufficient evidence due to the non-acceptance of the Erbis price list. As the valuation was solely reliant on this disputed evidence, the appeal succeeded on the grounds of lack of proper evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of evidence and procedural fairness in customs valuation disputes.