TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms, GVS, NCH, Mumbai I, holding as follows: "1. In view of such total failure of the said importer and in view of my above findings and keeping in mind the nature of goods imported. I order that all the goods imported by M/s TPIL from their related supplier M/s TPPS shall be assessed after adding 30% to the declared import invoice by the assessing groups with additions under Rule 9 (2), if any, subject to usual check scrutiny and verification of the declared value. However, if contemporaneous imports at a higher price are noticed, the groups may evaluate the goods under appropriate provisions of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 2. This addition of 30% shall be besides addition on account of other factors like landing charges, commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alt with separately under law and procedures as and when detected. 7 The decision is subject to review once in every Three Years. To facilitate prompt and timely review, the importer is requested to come forward with necessary data Four Months before the expiry of THREE YEARS period. 8. On expiry of Three years period, if no renewal is done this order will stand expired and the assessing groups may resort to provisional assessment with EDD equivalent to 1 % of assessable value. 9. This decision will remain in force till present method of invoicing remains unchanged. Any change affecting the Invoice values materially, be informed this branch sup motto by the importer without delay. 10. This decision shall be reviewed as and when ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at item No 8 of the questionnaire. 2.2 Importer did not submit any documents as stated by them during the personal hearing held before adjudicating authority and did not responded to the letter dated 28.12.2006 of the adjudicating authority seeking those documents. Thus adjudicating authority was constrained to process the case on the basis of viable documents and records. After considering the documents and evidences available on record adjudicating authority decided the matter as per his order referred in para 1, supra. 2.3 Aggrieved Appellants filed appeal to commissioner appeal which was dismissed as per impugned order referred in para 1 supra. 2.4 Aggrieved appellants are in appeal before tribunal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Rakesh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have considered impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 In order in original, adjudicating authority has recorded_ "DISCUSSION & FINDINGS 1 I have gone through the records of the case. 2 The said importer has failed to submit any response to the said communications of the department and the opportunities given to them to justify their invoice price 3 Under these circumstances I am constrained to decide this case on the basis of available records 4 M/s Tata Precision Industries Pte Ltd Singapore hold 50% of the total paid up capital of the importer therefore the importer and the supplier are related under Rule 2(2)(iv) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 5 Under the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the importer, therefore I find that they have not disclosed the actual fat to the department in their submissions' 10 Considering the above, I pass following order." 4.3 From the above it is clear that none of the submissions made by the appellant were considered by the adjudicating authority for the reason that these submissions were not before him when the matter was adjudicated by him. Also from the observations made by the Commissioner (Appeal) in his order, and reproduced in para 1.2, supra it is clear that Commissioner (Appeal) too have not considered the defence submission. Thus we are very clear in our mind that orders have been passed without considering the defence submissions and hence is in violation of principle of n....