1997 (5) TMI 229 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Under-invoicing of imported goods, confiscation for mis-declaration, penalty imposition, appeal against order-in-original, acceptance of declared value, introduction of new evidence, remand for de novo decision, error in passing adjudication order, difference in approach between orders, justification for value enhancement, notional addition of freight, rejection of declared price, discount availability, percentage difference in value, consideration of new evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against an adjudication order passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, which found two consignments of imported goods to be under-invoiced and confiscated them for mis-declaration. The values were enhanced, and penalties were imposed. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original, accepting the declared values. The Tribunal allowed the department's appeal, remanding the matter back for de novo decision based on existing records and averments.

2. The Additional Collector, in the impugned order, erred by not passing a new order on merits and stating no need to interfere with the earlier order, which had been set aside. The approach in the impugned order differed from the original order, focusing on quantity discounts not applicable to the importers due to order quantities. The justification for value enhancement lacked a strong basis, with a percentage difference of about 19-20%.

3. The appellant presented an import statement not considered by authorities, but the discounted prices were not refuted. The Tribunal set aside the order, considering the errors in passing it and the lack of strong justification for value enhancement. The rejection of declared prices and the notional addition of freight were not adequately supported, leading to the appeal's allowance.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of under-invoicing, confiscation, penalty imposition, appeal process, consideration of new evidence, error in passing orders, justification for value enhancement, and the rejection of declared prices, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment.