2002 (9) TMI 186 - AT - Customs

Appeal Allowed, Order Set Aside, Remand for Reconsideration based on Evidence

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order and remanding the matter for re-consideration based on evidence of market value ... Burden of proof for enhancement of customs valuation - contemporaneous import evidence - valuation cannot be enhanced on mere admission - market enquiry and profit margin consideration for valuation - remand for re-adjudication - misdeclaration liability for confiscation, fine and penaltyBurden of proof for enhancement of customs valuation - contemporaneous import evidence - valuation cannot be enhanced on mere admission - market enquiry and profit margin consideration for valuation - Enhancement of assessable value could not be sustained on the basis of the importer's admission alone and required proof of contemporaneous import or other market evidence. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted that the file lacked any record of market enquiry to ascertain import market price or margin of profit. The appellants relied on authorities to show that the Revenue bears the burden to establish grounds for revising valuation and that enhancement cannot rest on presumption. The admissions recorded related to the contents of the containers and not to the value; therefore mere admission did not justify raising the assessable value. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority to reconsider valuation after taking into account the judgments cited by the appellants and any evidence procured by the department regarding contemporaneous import, market value of the goods and profit margins.Impugned enhancement of value set aside in principle; matter remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration of valuation on the basis of contemporaneous import evidence or market enquiry and profit margin, with reference to the precedents cited.Misdeclaration liability for confiscation, fine and penalty - remand for re-adjudication - Consequences of the established misdeclaration require re-adjudication by the original authority. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal recorded that misdeclaration of goods was not in dispute. Consequently, the legal consequences flowing from misdeclaration - including liability to confiscation, imposition of fine and penalty - require fresh adjudication. The matter of confiscation, fine and penalty was not finally decided on merits by the Tribunal and must be re-adjudicated by the original authority after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing.The question of confiscation, fine and penalty arising from the misdeclaration is remitted to the original authority for re-adjudication after giving the appellants due opportunity of hearing.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed to the extent that the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration of valuation on the basis of contemporaneous import or market evidence and for re-adjudication of confiscation, fine and penalty consequent to the undisputed misdeclaration, after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing. The appellants challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 201/02, dated 14-5-2002 regarding misdeclaration of goods. The Commissioner reduced penalty to Rs. 2,30,000/-. DRI suggested enhancing value to US $ 200 PMT for blue M.S. sheets found in the consignment. Appellants argued for proof of contemporaneous import to revise valuation. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for re-consideration based on evidence of market value and profit margin. Misdeclaration of goods is not disputed, and re-adjudication is required. Appeal allowed for remand to original authority.