1998 (8) TMI 359 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Enhancement of CIF value of imported garbage
- Comparison with earlier imports
- Correctness of assessable value determination

Issue 1: Enhancement of CIF value of imported garbage
The appellant imported garbage from the USA, described as plastic waste with metal, paper, glass, dirt, etc. The Customs authorities increased the CIF value of the consignments based on comparisons with computer print-outs of similar goods imported at other ports. The appellant argued that the goods were unsorted garbage, containing various materials, unlike the sorted goods in the print-outs. The authorities enhanced the value, citing earlier imports by the appellant with similar enhancements. The Tribunal found that the authorities did not properly consider the nature of the goods and the pricing differences between sorted and unsorted plastics. The physical composition of the goods imported by the appellant was 75% HDPE and 25% PET bottle scrap, which was priced lower than sorted plastics. The Tribunal concluded that the price declared by the appellant for unsorted plastics was justified, and there was no basis for enhancing the value.

Issue 2: Comparison with earlier imports
The Collector (Appeals) relied on alleged prior imports where the value was enhanced, and the appellant supposedly accepted the enhancements. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the references to these earlier imports in the orders. While the first order did not mention any prior import, the subsequent orders referred to earlier imports where enhancements were accepted. The Tribunal found that the appellant had challenged the original order related to the alleged prior import, contrary to the authorities' understanding. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities erred in assuming the appellant's acceptance of prior enhancements, as the appellant had challenged the orders.

Issue 3: Correctness of assessable value determination
The Tribunal observed that the authorities did not thoroughly examine the case, particularly the pricing differences between sorted and unsorted plastics. The computer print-outs and pricing reports showed significant variations in prices based on the type of plastics. The Tribunal highlighted that the prices of unsorted plastics, like the goods imported by the appellant, were considerably lower than sorted plastics. The appellant's submissions regarding these pricing differences were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal, after reviewing the pricing data and material composition of the goods, concluded that the enhancement of the CIF value was unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant.