Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Fairfield Atlas Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 2004
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. After hearing both sides on the application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we found that it was possible to take up the appeal itself for disposal at this stage; hence we proceed to do so with the consent of both sides after granting the prayer.
2. The case of the importer by the appellants was examined by the Special Valuation Branch, Mumbai for determination of assessable value of goods under Section 14 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The adjudicating authority found that the appellants were related to the supplier. The adjudicating authority ordered finalization of the assessments on loading of invoice value by 25%. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. After hearing both sides, we find that information was called for from time to time regarding relationship between the appellants and its suppliers, information was furnished, that on receipt of notice fixing personal hearing before the Appraising Officer on 16.12.2003, the appellant replied asking for further time to submit various information and documents and also requested time for personal hearing to enable them to produce all necessary material. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs GATT Valuation Cell neither granted time for production of the documents nor did he adjourn the hearing but, passed an ex-parte order. We further note that the Commissioner (Appeals)did note that an application for condonation of delay was required to be filed but was not filed. He ought to have brought this to the notice of the appellants, all the more so, when the delay was within the period which could be condoned by him. We set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh decision to the original adjudicating authority as the appellants state before us that the necessary information and documents are available for production before the adjudicating authority.
3. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
(Pronounced in Court)