2000 (7) TMI 702 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against enhancement of value and imposition of penalty on imported goods.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by M/s. Tropical Agrosystem (India) Ltd. against an Order-in-Original by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta. The order confirmed a differential duty and imposed a penalty on the appellant for the import of Dimethyl Acetyl Phosphoramidothioate (Acephate Technical) of Chinese origin. The value was enhanced from US $ 5850 to US $ 6800 per MT, with a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. Although the goods were held liable for confiscation, they were not confiscated due to their unavailability as per the directions of the High Court of Calcutta.

The main grievance of the appellant was against the enhancement of value and the penalty imposed. The facts revealed that the goods were imported by another entity initially but were later transacted to the appellant. The declared value was US $ 5850 per MT, but the Customs authorities relied on the value of contemporaneous imports of similar Chinese goods at Mumbai and Chennai, ranging from US $ 6800 to US $ 7660 per MT. The appellant argued that the original value considered various factors like risk, storage conditions, and additional charges, which were not fully appreciated by the adjudicating authority.

During the proceedings, the appellant's consultant argued that the adjudicating authority did not disclose the documents of contemporaneous imports of similar goods at higher values, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting a lack of proper disclosure and an improper appreciation of the circumstances surrounding the importation. The sale to the appellant was considered a distress sale, justifying the lower transaction value. Therefore, reliance on higher values of contemporaneous imports was deemed inappropriate and illogical.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the declared value and the imposition of the penalty were unjustified and illegal. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. This decision was based on the violation of natural justice principles and the improper assessment of the unique circumstances of the case, leading to an incorrect valuation of the imported goods.