2000 (12) TMI 609 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of imported goods.
2. Classification of imported goods.
3. Imposition of penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of Imported Goods:

The appellants placed an order for spares of Earth Moving Equipment/Machinery from a foreign supplier, and a dispute arose regarding the valuation and correct classification of the goods upon their arrival. The Assistant Commissioner observed that the declared value was much lower than the actual value, leading to further investigation by the S.I.B. The Commissioner of Customs rejected the transaction value and determined the value based on the price list of the manufacturer, imposing a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appellants argued that the goods were not manufactured by M/s. Allison Transmission or M/s. Twin Disc, as assumed by the Commissioner, and provided evidence that other manufacturers also use similar part numbers for identification purposes. The Department's reliance on the price lists of these companies was contested, as the goods were marked with suffixes indicating they were not from the original manufacturers.

The Tribunal found sufficient force in the appellant's submission and set aside the impugned order regarding the assessable value, noting that the Customs Officers had found part numbers with suffixes on the imported goods, which indicated they were not from the original manufacturers. The Tribunal also noted that the adjudicating authority did not adequately address the evidence provided by the appellants.

2. Classification of Imported Goods:

The Commissioner classified the goods under heading 8483.90 instead of 8431.49 without providing any reasoning. The appellants contended that the goods had been previously classified under heading 8431.49, and the burden was on the Revenue to justify the change in classification.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on the classification issue, instructing the Commissioner to consider the submissions made by the appellants and provide a detailed reasoning for the classification.

3. Imposition of Penalty:

As the appeal was allowed on the point of classification by way of remand, the Tribunal set aside the quantum of penalty imposed upon the appellants. However, the adjudicating authority was given the liberty to reconsider the penalty during the de novo proceedings if the appellants were found guilty of misdeclaring the classification of the goods.

Dissenting Opinion:

The Vice President opined that the entire matter should be remanded for de novo adjudication, including the valuation and classification issues. He emphasized that the Department's allegations regarding the original packing of the goods and the correct classification needed thorough examination. He also pointed out the need for a detailed and specific order from the Commissioner after giving the appellants an opportunity to be heard.

Third Member's Opinion:

The Third Member concurred with the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) regarding the valuation issue, stating that the appellants had provided sufficient evidence to support their contention. He found no justification for remanding the matter for further enquiry into the original packing aspect, as suggested by the Vice President. The Third Member agreed with the remand of the classification issue for a fresh decision by the Commissioner.

Final Order:

In view of the majority opinion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order regarding the assessable value and remanded the issue of classification to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.