9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were of SKF make. According to the department the assessable value of the goods was not available with the Customs at Amritsar where the goods had been imported and they sought the information from Delhi Customs who intimated that the C.I.F. value was Rs. 9.25 per piece based on the list price available with them for the years 1982 and 1985. Accordingly, the total C.I.F. value of the goods worked out to Rs. 1,38,750.00 as against Rs. 17,128.20 declared in the Bill of Entry. The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Collector of Customs, who, on further information obtained from Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi, held that the value of the bearings was Rs. 18.40 per piece bringing the total assessable value to Rs. 2,76,000/-and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al evidence relied upon or to offer his comments. Shri Durghayya submits that the matter could be remanded back so that the party is given an opportunity to be heard on the evidence made available by the Central Warehousing Corporation. As regards the Bill of Entry the learned J.D.R. states that it did not contain the complete specification of the goods imported; not could the invoice be fully related to it and proved. 5. Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate strongly opposes remand of the case. He submits that the show cause notice itself has no legal basis and therefore the orders should be set aside. 6. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. We find that in this case a show cause notice was issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the burden of proving ths charge of under valuation lies squarely on the department. Appellants have rightly relied on the decision of this Bench in the case of Orient Enterprises, New Delhi v. Collector of Customs, Cochin - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 507 (Trib.) and Babcock Venkateshwara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 335 (Trib.). It has been held repeatedly by this Tribunal that where the charge of under invoicing is laid against an importer, it is the duty of the authorities to make necessary investigation at the major ports with regard to the price at which goods of the like kind and quality were being imported. The charge of under invoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -valuation, I take note that the Collector while passing the order relied upon some evidence consisting an import at CWC, New Delhi. In fairness to the defence, he should have disclosed the evidence to them and they should have been given an opportunity to counter the same. This has not been done; the order cannot be sustained. 13. However, I feel that the omission on the part of the Collector should be allowed to be made good. While I agree that the order should be set-aside, I hold that the matter should be remanded to the Collector for fresh adjudication after disclosing to the appellants the relevant evidence relied on by the department and after giving a reasonable opportunity to them to counter the evidence. 14. I, therefore, allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
