Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Swati Growth Funds Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Nch, Mumbai on 29 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No.C/229 to 232/05 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 750,751, 752 & 753/2004 MCH dt. 10.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I ) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
M/s. Swati Growth Funds Ltd.
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Customs, NCH, Mumbai
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for Appellant
Shri D.K. Sinha, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 29/08/2016
Date of decision: 29/08/2016
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Appraising Group VII, Mumbai-I, in the adjudication ordered for assessment of Bill of Entry No. 853 dt. 30.12.2003 in respect of import of Gambier Booch at the rate of US$1750PMT (CIF) as against the declared value of US$ 1265.73PMT the price was enhanced and the declared price was rejected on the basis of contemporaneous import of identical goods according to which the value of Gambier Booch is US$ 1750 PMT for which the Bill of Entries No. 403873 dt. 28.10.2003 and 411641 dt. 21.11.2003 in respect of contemporaneous import was relied upon. The appellant aggrieved by the said adjudication order dt. 9.1.2004 filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the orders of the lower authority and rejected the appeals filed by the appellant. Therefore the appellant is before us.
2. Shri Anil Balani Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the import of the appellant is absolutely genuine on the ground that there is a proper contract with the foreign supplier and the same is backed by irrevocable Letters of Credit. He also referred to a certificate issued from the Industry and Trade Provincial office in Indonesia, wherein the price of Gambier Booch of Indonesia was confirmed between the US$ 1250 to US$ 1300 PMT, with these evidences the price declared by the appellant cannot be doubted. He also submits that the Bill of Entries of so called contemporaneous imports were not supplied to the appellant. Therefore the details such as country of origin, quality of goods, quantity of contemporaneous import etc. were not known to the appellant. Therefore the appellant did not get the opportunity to rebut the contemporaneous import.
3. Shri D.K. Sinha, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that both the lower authorities have relied upon the contemporaneous import of the identical goods therefore enhancement of the value is justified and the same cannot be disputed.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the appellant was never provided the Bill of Entries relied upon in respect of contemporaneous import. There is no other evidence except the said bill of entries for enhancing the value. Therefore the appellant did not get opportunity to rebut the contemporaneous import in their defense. We are therefore of the opinion that in view of the facts discussed above, the matter needs to be remanded to the original authority. The appellant shall be provided with the Bill of Entry and other import documents in respect of contemporaneous import relied upon by the Revenue. Thereafter the appellant shall be given sufficient opportunity of personal hearing for presenting their case. The de novo adjudication may be completed by the adjudicating authority within a period of 3 months from the date of this order. The appeals are disposed of by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority.
(Pronounced in court ) (Raju) Member (Technical) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) SM.
4 C/229 to 232/05