2000 (1) TMI 48 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court: Fax not enough for valuation. Burden on Customs. Appeal allowed.

The Supreme Court held that a fax message of a quotation from one party in Singapore to another cannot be the sole basis for valuation of imported goods, ... Valuation (Customs) - Contemporaneous import - Evidence Issues involved: Valuation of unbranded condensers of Japanese origin based on a fax copy of a quotation from a Singapore party to another Singapore party, burden of proof on Customs authorities, right to cross-examination of the source, reliance on previous investigations for valuation.Summary:1. The case involved the valuation of unbranded condensers of Japanese origin based on a fax copy of a quotation from a Singapore party to another Singapore party. The Customs authorities relied on this quotation without disclosing the source and denied the appellants the right to cross-examine the source.2. The matter was taken to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which held that the burden of proof lay on the Customs authorities to provide sufficient evidence for valuation and disclose it for rebuttal. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector for redetermination of valuation.3. Upon remand, the Collector failed to find any new evidence but still did not accept the material produced by the appellants. The Collector once again relied on the same quotation without allowing cross-examination, leading to a disputed valuation of the imported goods.4. The appellants appealed to the Tribunal again, which upheld the Collector's valuation without considering the issues of burden of proof, disclosure, and cross-examination raised in the earlier stage.5. The Supreme Court held that a fax message of a quotation from one party in Singapore to another cannot be the sole basis for valuation, especially when the importer's request for cross-examination is denied. The burden of proof lies on the Customs authorities to establish the value of imported goods satisfactorily.6. The appeal was allowed, and the order under appeal was set aside. The imported goods were to be valued based on the value declared by the appellants. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.