Judgment:
1. The appellant imported a consignment of 1/2" video cassettes 1500 Nos. The declared value was @ DM 3.20 per cassette. Import was from Germany under Bill of Entry dt. 3-5-01. The relevant invoice from M/s.
Importers & Export Hausdorfstr.199, 53129 Bonn. Germany is dt. 24-4-01.
Rejecting the invoice price the Dy. Commissioner of Customs (Import), IGI Airport Delhi assessed the Bill of Entry @ US $ 4.50 per pc.
Aggrieved by the above, the importer filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same under order dt. 21-6-02.
The above order is under challenge in this appeal.
2. The assessing authority loaded the price and fixed @ 4.50 US $ per pc. on the basis of assessment of a Bill of Entry in the case of M/s.
Matchwell Chemical Works. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the above assessment holding that evidence on record would show that the goods were properly examined and that a decision was taken to enhance the declared value on the basis of value of contemporaneous import of similar goods.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant would content that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed a great error in not considering the contention raised by the appellant that there is no reason given by the adjudicating authority to reject the invoice value. He also pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate the contention raised by the appellant that the document relied on to load the value of the goods imported by the appellant was not made available to the appellant at any stage. The contention raised by the appellant that invoice price of M/s. Matchwell Chemical Works was loaded after rejecting the declared value was repelled by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of the contention.
4. Ld. Departmental Representative submits that since importer had cleared the goods on the basis of the value as loaded by the original authority, it has to be taken that the importer had no objection against such loading at the time of clearance. Under these circumstances according to him the appellant cannot now raise any objection to the loading of the value.
5. On going through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that he has proceeded on totally irrelevant basis. A reference to the endorsements on the Bill of Entry shows that M.R.P. @ Rs. 135/- has been declared in the invoice attached. There is no finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) as to why M.R.P. shown as above is not acceptable. The authorities can proceed to load the value only after arriving at a conclusion that the declared value is not acceptable for justifiable reasons. No such exercise is taken in the order impugned. Apart from the above, the material relied on by the original authority to load the invoice value namely the assessment of M/s. Matchwell Chemical Works is not made available to the appellant at any stage of the proceeding. Such document is not made available even to this Tribunal. According to us, the procedure followed is totally in violation of principles of natural justice. The appellant had raised a contention on the wording of the endorsement on the Bill of Entry namely as decided in the case of M/s. Matchwell Chemical Works' that the value @ 4.50 US $ was not declared value of any contemporaneous import but only the loaded value. If this contention is factually wrong, the Appellate Authority could have on the basis of materials which were available only with the Revenue, rejected the same. On the other hand, the contention was repelled oh the ground that the appellant had not produced any evidence.
6. The appellant had produced certain sample invoice to show that after the goods were cleared, they sold the same @ Rs. 105/- to Rs. 115/- per pc. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we are of the view that the order impugned cannot be sustained under law. We, therefore, set aside the order and allow the appeal. The appellant will be entitled to all consequential relief including refund of the differential duty paid, in accordance with law.