SOUNDS N IMAGES Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What we are concerned with here is the valuation of unbranded condensers of Japanese origin. At the initial stage before the Collector, the Customs authorities relied upon the fax copy of a quotation issued by a Singapore party to another Singapore party. The Collector noted that "the same had been collected from a source. The source was not revealed by the Department as normally done. " The appellants disputed the correctness of the fax copy of the quotation that was relied upon and sought cross-examination of the source. The collector took the surprising view that if the appellants suspected the bona fides of the document, it was for them to prove that it was not genuine. He added that when entire contents of the fax copy of the quotation had been given to the appellants, the cross-examination that was sought was not necessary. The Collector referred to investigations that had been made in regard to earlier imports of similar goods by the appellants and held that, for that reason, the value thereof was not acceptable.

(2.) The matter was carried by the appellants to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the argument of the appellants that the burden lay on the Customs authorities not only to bring sufficient evidence of the correct valuation but also to disclose it to the other side for rebuttal. It held that the authorities were not right in relying upon the quotation offered by one party in Singapore to another party in Singapore. Having regard to the investigation that was in progress, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector on the limited issue of valuation, to re-determine it in the light of its observation.

(3.) Accordingly, the matter went back to the Collector. The Collector found that the investigations had revealed nothing. Even so, the material relating to valuation that was produced by the appellants was not accepted. Instead, the Collector once again relied upon the same quotation given by one party in Singapore to another and that without offering to the appellants the opportunity of cross examining the source, and proceeded to value the imported goods upon that basis.