1990 (12) TMI 215 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods and validity of the license

In this case, the appellants imported measuring instruments and declared values, which were later enhanced by the Collector of Customs. The appellants challenged the decision, arguing that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice as cross-examination of witnesses was not allowed. The appellants also contended that previous imports of similar goods were not questioned by Customs, and the documents filed were not considered. The appellants disputed the violation of handbook provisions and argued that the license trafficking allegations were unsubstantiated. The issue of valuation was raised concerning the price list and whether prices should be considered CIF or FOB. The Customs Department relied on the price list, while the appellants argued for reliance on the invoice.

Regarding the valuation issue, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, stating that the prices in the price lists should not be considered CIF as argued by the appellants. The Tribunal found the Customs Department's reliance on the price list valid, rejecting the appellants' unsubstantiated claims about previous imports.

Regarding the validity of the license, the Tribunal considered the trafficking allegations. The evidence mainly relied on statements from witnesses, including Shri K. Dalal and Shri Shah. The Collector did not allow cross-examination of these witnesses, and no documentary evidence of sale was presented. The Tribunal found the evidence of trafficking insufficient, especially in the absence of cross-examination. Additionally, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the handbook provisions and Import Control Rules, ultimately setting aside the Collector's decision due to lack of acceptable evidence of license trafficking.

As a result, the Tribunal upheld the enhancement of the goods' value but set aside the confiscation. Since the evidence on the value of goods was not adequately considered and no illegal remittance was alleged, the penalty was also set aside. The appeal was partly allowed, with the decision reflecting the findings on valuation and license validity issues.