Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The appellants imported goods at their respective Branches directly. They declared to the Customs Authorities that JC Singapore is a related entity as per the definition of related persons under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. Accordingly the Customs authorities directed a loading of 1% and execution of provisional duty bond.

5. According to the appellants 90% of their import is through Mumbai. The Customs authorities in Mumbai referred the case to their respective SVB in April 1999. The appellants submitted their reply to the SVB questionnaire under letter dated 17.4.2000. Finally after verification of evidence on record and adjudication SVB Mumbai accepted the declared transaction value under order dated 11.9.2000 passed by Deputy Commissioner, SVB.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the case on merits. Going by the provisions of the Board's Circular dated 1.1.98 and 23.2.2001 investigation has to be taken by the SVB at the place where the appellants have their registered office and that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, SVB, Mumbai is binding on imports in other places also. He also pointed out that the order dated 7.1.2000 is not a reasoned order, but on the other hand, the order passed by SVB Mumbai dated 11.8.2000 contains materials and reasoning supporting the finding. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have followed the view taken by SVB Mumbai. The learned counsel points out that two consignments which had erroneously landed in Delhi in February 2000 were cleared without 20% loading when the order dated 11.8.2000 was produced before the Delhi Customs authorities.

It is on the basis of the above circular the appellants submit that it was the SVB Mumbai that should have enquired into the issue and not SVB Delhi as its Head Office is at Mumbai. It is true that when proceedings were initiated by SVB Delhi there is nothing to show that they were aware of the fact that the appellant's head office is at Mumbai and that its major import is also at Mumbai. As mentioned earlier, the appellants had not replied to the show cause notice nor had appeared in person for hearing before the Deputy Commissioner. It is the case of the appellants that they have never received the show cause notice or notice for personal hearing. No attempt is being made either in the order in original or in the appellate order to establish that the above stand taken by the assessee was false. On going through the order dated 7.1.2000 we find that the Deputy Commissioner has not given any reason to make a loading of 20%. Since no reply was received from the appellants to show cause notice it seems that no further investigation was also made. Even in the case of best assessment the Deputy Commissioner should have followed the Rules and given the grounds on which he had decided to load the value by 20%. On the other hand, we find that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner SVB Mumbai is the reasoned order. It is supported by materials. We are informed that the department has accepted the above order and the finding therein was not challenged.

10. Above being the position, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee only for the reason that they failed to bring to the notice of SVB Mumbai earlier order dated 7.1.2000 passed by SVB Delhi. It is not the case of the Commissioner that in view of any additional material available with SVB Delhi a different view would have been taken by SVB Mumbai if those materials were placed before SVB Mumbai. Even today the Revenue has no case that the data provided by the assessee before the SVB Mumbai were wrong and that there are additional materials in the possession of SVB Delhi which can be utilized to show that the view taken by SVB Mumbai is incorrect. Therefore, the admitted position is that a reasoned order passed in favour of the assessee by SVB Mumbai is not challenged by the Revenue. Whether such an order could be preferred to the order dated 7.1.2000 which does not contain any reasoning at all to load the value by 20%? We are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have accepted the view taken by SVB Mumbai especially in the light of the directions given by the Board in Circular dated 1.1.98. The subsequent Circular dated 23.2.2001 also contains identical provisions. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and direct the Deputy Commissioner, SVB Delhi, the original adjudicating authority to finalize the assessment by following the decision of Deputy Commissioner, SVB Mumbai dated 11.8.2000. The appeal stands allowed as above.