2007 (9) TMI 470 - AT - Customs

Tribunal allows appeal after recalling order for lack of evidence, grants relief through rectification.

The Tribunal recalled the earlier order due to a significant delay and failure to provide details of contemporaneous imports to challenge the value ... Rectification of mistake - Recall of order - Remand - Valuation Issues:Rectification of Tribunal's Order after a long delay, Enhancement of value based on contemporaneous imports, Necessity of providing details of contemporaneous imports to appellants for challenging value enhancement, Admissibility of relief through rectification of mistake.Analysis:The appellant sought rectification of Tribunal's Order dated 1-12-2005, citing a delay of about nine months from the date of hearing, challenging it in light of a judgment by the Honourable Bombay High Court. The appellant argued that merely on the basis of admission by importers, enhancement of value cannot be done, referencing previous Tribunal decisions. The appellant contended that due to Customs holding up the goods for a long period with mounting demurrage/detention charges, they reluctantly agreed to the value enhancement. However, they emphasized the necessity, as held by the Tribunal in previous cases, for the adjudicating Commissioner to provide details of contemporaneous imports to challenge the value enhancement.The respondent supported the impugned order and the Tribunal's decision, stating that the appellants had agreed to the value enhancement themselves. The respondent justified the valuation under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, relying on contemporaneous imports, and argued against granting relief through rectification of mistake in this case.Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that the earlier order was passed long after the hearing, in contravention of the cited decision of the Bombay High Court. Additionally, although the adjudicating authority applied Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules and referred to values of similar goods imported through Nhava Sheva Port, they failed to provide details of contemporaneous imports to enable the appellants to challenge the value enhancement. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the earlier order, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the original authority for re-decision after furnishing details of contemporaneous imports to the appellants and providing them with an adequate opportunity to be heard. The miscellaneous application and appeal were allowed accordingly.