1998 (11) TMI 339 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
2. Compliance with Tribunal's directions regarding contemporaneous evidence.
3. Reliance on evidence by the Commissioner.
4. Setting aside the order of confiscation and enhanced value.

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appeal concerned the valuation of the LNB Down Convertor 28-K imported by the appellant, with the Commissioner fixing the value at US $ 33.6 per piece FOB under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Commissioner also added insurance and freight at a specified rate and ordered confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, with redemption on payment of a fine and imposition of a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act.

Compliance with Tribunal's Directions:
The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to the Commissioner with a specific direction to provide evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods. The Tribunal rejected the evidence relied on by the Commissioner, emphasizing the need for contemporaneous evidence. The appellants presented Bills of Entry showing lower prices for goods of US origin, which the Commissioner did not consider. The Tribunal, noting the lack of effort by the Commissioner to trace out contemporaneous imports, remanded the matter again with a direction to comply with the Tribunal's earlier order.

Reliance on Evidence by the Commissioner:
The learned Counsel argued that the Commissioner did not abide by the Tribunal's directions and merely passed the same order without presenting reliable evidence of contemporaneous imports of similar goods. The Commissioner's reliance on quotations and failure to provide evidence as directed by the Tribunal led to a finding that the impugned order was not in compliance with the Tribunal's directions.

Setting Aside the Order of Confiscation and Enhanced Value:
After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not complied with the Tribunal's order to provide contemporaneous evidence of similar goods. The Commissioner's reliance on quotations previously rejected by the Tribunal and failure to consider the Bills of Entry presented by the appellants led to the appeal being allowed. Consequently, the order of confiscation and enhanced value was set aside, and the appeal was accepted based on the evidence provided by the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of valuation, compliance with directions, reliance on evidence, and the final decision to set aside the order of confiscation and enhanced value based on the lack of contemporaneous evidence provided by the Commissioner.