Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 576 - CESTAT CHENNAIValuation - misdeclaration - mavish - black raisins - description of the goods - Held that: - So far as the description of the goods is concerned, the character of the goods was 'raisin' only when the laboratory could not opine properly. Also, we find that there was a leading question put to the laboratory to opine in favour of Revenue. Department should have only asked the laboratory to state the nature and character of the goods and done classification according to law. Whereas the department framed the question to the laboratory stating that whether the goods under import are "Black Bhokri" or not. The opinion of the laboratory when remained doubtful, that is not acceptable to law. So far as the valuation issue is concerned, there is no material shown to us to disturb the transaction value declared by the appellant. It is rule of law that to reject the transaction value, the department should state the reason why the transaction value declared is not correct. In the present case, the imports being of 2002, Customs Valuation Rules, 1998 applies. To proceed with a best judgement assessment, Rule 10A requires record of reasoning in case the transaction value declared by importer is disbelieved. There is no such reason recorded since nothing was brought to our notice while provisional release was allowed. There is nothing on record to suggest that the contemporaneous value adopted by the department had the basis to compare the goods of the appellant in a rational manner. When the requirement of law is examined, it appears that to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared, the officer concerned has to intimate the importer in writing the grounds of his doubt. There was no such intimation of doubt in writing issued by the authority to the importer. Before proceeding further, against the importer, the officer shall follow the course of natural justice as has been embedded into Rule 10A. That was not followed. The intimation intended by law is to provide an opportunity to the importer of being heard on the controversy. Revenue explains that issuance of SCN is sufficient compliance of Rule 10A. We do not understand how a citizen can be dealt to the detriment of Justice without following the procedure known to law. Codified procedure of law is enacted to serve public interest and an order to be passed publicly by a public authority. That was a failure by the department not acting in accordance with law - appeals allowed.
|