Decided on January 06,2015



Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) - (1.)AFTER hearing both the sides, we find that the demand of Rs. 9,50,586/ - and Rs. 14,71,905/ - stands confirmed against the appellant in terms of provisions of Section 14 of Customs Valuation Rules in respect of the export consignment of iron ore fines made by the appellant, under a contract. The said demand stands confirmed on the sole ground that there is another shipping bill filed by another person showing the higher sale value. Apart from that, there is nothing on record to first reject the contract entered into by the appellant with their foreign buyers or any evidence to reflect any receipt of money by the assessee from his foreign buyers towards the value of the exported goods. Further, there is nothing on record to reflect that another shipping bill, relied upon by the Revenue, was contemporaneous in nature, inasmuch as neither the quantum of the goods nor the quality of the goods stands mentioned. As such we are of the view that reliance on the sole shipping bill, for enhancement of the value is not proper.
(2.)WE further note a very self -contradictory observation of Commissioner (A), in his impugned order. For better appreciation, we reproduce paragraph 5.10.
"5.10 In view of the above, it is observed that providing relied upon documents to exporter (appellant) is a legal requirement and hence I direct the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner (respondent) concerned to provide the relied upon documents forthwith. However, the appeal filed is dismissed as devoid of merits."

It is seen that on one hand he is agreeing with the appellants grievance that relied upon documents were not provided to them and has directed the Assistant Commissioner to provide the same and at the same time rejected the appeal. We find that even in preceding paragraphs identical observations and findings as regards violation of principles of natural justice had been made by the Commissioner (A). Further, the appellate authority has also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam v. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. reported as : 2011 (273) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that as no details of any contemporaneous imports or any other material indicating the price notified by the LME had been referred to, the demand for the additional duty created against the assessee was not justified. However, the appellate authority has not gone ahead to observe that apart from referring to the shipping bill, no details, required for holding the said shipping bill as contemporaneous, stands given by the Revenue.

(3.)IN view of the above observations made by us, we find no justifiable reasons to sustain the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (A). Accordingly, after allowing the stay petitions, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals itself with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.