1997 (7) TMI 337 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Undervaluation of imported goods, reliance on quotations for valuation, contemporaneous import evidence not considered, competence of adjudicating authority.

In this case, the appellants filed two Bills of Entry for stuffed/loaded PCBs, declaring a unit price of Singapore $15.00 per set FOB. The goods were later alleged to be grossly undervalued, leading to detailed investigations. The department obtained quotations from overseas suppliers, with one quotation offering a price of Singapore $65 per set CIF for identical goods. A show cause notice was issued proposing differential duty payment, confiscation of goods, and penal action. The appellants contended that the comparison with similar goods and quotations relied upon were unjustified and disputed the department's findings. The Additional Collector fixed the value of the imported goods based on the quotation from Bombay Mercantile Corporation. The appellants appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the reliance on the quotation was improper as per the Calcutta High Court's judgment and that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the voluminous contemporaneous import evidence provided by them.

The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both sides and reviewed the impugned order. It noted that no cogent evidence was presented by the adjudicating authority to support the valuation based on the quotation, except for the quotation itself. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the quotation could not be relied upon due to the High Court's judgment. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority did not address the substantial contemporaneous import evidence submitted by the appellants, which was crucial for valuation. The Tribunal emphasized that the department should have provided evidence to support the valuation, which was lacking in this case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants. The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority for not considering the voluminous evidence provided by the appellants and highlighted the importance of proper evidence in determining the value of imported goods.