MAHARISHI ALLOYS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have challenged the Order -in -Appeal No. 201/02, dated 14 -5 -2002 by which the Order in -Original dt. 19 -4 -2002 has been confirmed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order by reducing the penalty amount to Rs. 2,30,000/ -. The charges against the appellants was that they had filed Bill of Entry No. 370253, dated 2 -1 -2002 under DEPB Scheme for clearance of 83.46 M.Ts. of non -alloy re -melting scrap. The value declared was US 110 PMT and total value of the goods is Rs. 4,55,525/ - The consignment was intercepted by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the matter was taken up for investigation. On examination, it was found that two containers contained 46.605 MTs of Blue coloured M.S. sheets out of the total weight of 56.456 MTs in respect of non -alloy re -melting scrap as declared by the importer. The importer accepted the misdeclaration. Therefore, the DRI suggested for enhancing the value to US 200 PMT as assessable value for 46.605 MTs of blue colour MS sheets. However, no evidence has been placed with regard to the contemporaneous import and its value on the said rate. Although, the appellants have made payment through demand draft, they have now challenged the impugned order on the ground that to enhance the value there has to be evidence of the contemporaneous import and mere admission made by the party under duress cannot be a ground for enhancing the value. They submit that the value is correct one. The revaluation at enhanced value has to follow due process of law. It is pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any detailed findings on valuation but on the other hand has admitted that the file did not contain the fact as to whether any market enquiry was made to ascertain the market price of the goods under import, margin of profit etc. or not ? In the light of this findings, it is stated that the order is not sustainable and the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

(2.) Heard Shri Mosilamani, Ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri C. Mani, Ld. DR for the revenue.

(3.) On a careful consideration of the submission made by both sides and on perusal of the records, we notice that the Commissioner himself has noted that the file did not contain the fact as to whether any market enquiry had been made to ascertain the market price of the goods under import and also the margin of profit etc.? In this matter the appellants have relied on a large number of judgments to show that the burden of proof to revise the valuation is on the Revenue under reviewing and the valuation cannot be enhanced merely on presumption and assumption. We have considered this plea and agree with the appellants that there has to be proof of contemporaneous import to enhance the value. Mere admission of the party will not give scope to the DRI to enhance the value. The admissions were made with regard contents of the container but not with regard to the value. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority to take into consideration all the judgments cited by the appellants in the proceedings to reconsider the plea that valuation cannot be revised and re -decide the matter in the light of any evidence procured by the department pertaining to the market value of the goods and the profit of margin. However, the aspect of misdeclaration of goods is not in dispute. The goods become liable for confiscation/ fine and penalty, which also requires to be re -adjudicated after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority.