2004 (3) TMI 117 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Transaction Value for Imported Fabric, Rejects Penalties Due to Lack of Evidence.

TATA JOHNSON CONTROLS AUTOMOTIVE Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MUMBAI

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the remand order, upholding the transaction value for imported fabric and allowing the appeals. It emphasized adherence ... Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Determination of customs valuation u/r Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - remand for fresh adjudication u/r 7(3)(a) of Customs Valuation Rules - HELD THAT:- Relying on the settled law that 'in appeal a new case cannot be made out and matter remitted back for that purpose.' Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CCE [1996 (10) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT], Kohinoor Dyg. & Ptg. Works [1994 (3) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI]. And following the same, it has to be held that the order of Deputy Commissioner relying on Rule 6 to load duty demands, confiscation and penal liabilities was required to be set aside by the Commissioner and a fresh case for re-adjudication was not required to made out. When there is no case for rejection of Tribunal value, the order of remand and making out a new case cannot be upheld. Appeals are therefore allowed. Issues involved: Determination of customs valuation u/r Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, applicability of Rule 6 for similar goods, imposition of penalties u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962, remand for fresh adjudication u/r 7(3)(a) of Customs Valuation Rules.Summary:The Appellant, a manufacturer of Automotive Seating Systems, imported 180 cm width fabric which was later reduced to 150 cm width. Customs Authorities alleged undervaluation, applying Rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Penalties were imposed u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication u/r 7(3)(a) of Customs Valuation Rules, rejecting the transaction value. The Appellate Tribunal held that a new case cannot be made out in appeal and upheld the transaction value, setting aside the order of remand. The rejection of transaction value under Rule 4(2) was not upheld due to lack of evidence on the proposed manufacture program. Appeals were allowed.This judgment addressed the issues of customs valuation, applicability of valuation rules, penalties under the Customs Act, and the remand for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to transaction value unless there is concrete evidence to reject it under the Customs Valuation Rules. The rejection of transaction value was not upheld due to lack of confirmation on the proposed manufacture program, leading to the allowance of the appeals. The Tribunal highlighted the need for proper evidence and adherence to valuation rules in customs cases to ensure fair and accurate determination of import values.