CC Vs. GROVER OVERSEAS (P) LTD. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 7 Revenue appeals which had been heard by the Tribunal by a Bench comprising of Shri V.P. Gulati, Hon'ble Vice President and Shri T.P. Nambiar Hon'ble Member, and the matter had been disposed of by Final Order No. 2109 to 2117/97 dated 1.8.1997 by remanding the matter to the original authority with certain directions. The respondents were aggrieved with the said order and had filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 15621, 15622/97 and WMP Nos. 24785 and 24787/97. The Hon'ble High Court by their Order dated 2.2.1998 set aside the order of the Tribunal and has remanded the case to the Tribunal to decide the case on the basis of evidence before it had enter into a definite finding. In terms of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, notices were issued and the matter has come up for final hearing today. The appellants were represented by Shri S. Kannan, Ld. JDR and the respondents were represented by Shri M. Ramachandran, Consultant and Shri Raja Kalifulla, Advocate.

(2.) THE short facts for the purpose of determining this case are that the respondents were importers of Mulberry Raw Silk (20/22 Denier F Grade) of Chinese origin from M/s. Dolly (Exports) (Far East) Ltd., Hong Kong, out of which 7: consignments were imported by M/s. Shakun Overseas Ltd., New Delhi, 2. M/s. Siddarth International and 3. by M/s. Grover Overseas (P) Ltd. The imports of Grover Overseas Pvt. Ltd. were of Korean origin in respect of one consignment only. The importers had filed their Bill of Entry along with all the documents to show that the declared price was in terms of the transaction value. However, the said valuation was not accepted and it was rejected without assigning any reasons and arbitrarily enhanced the value of the consignment. The importers paid the enhanced value under protest and the goods were cleared. Thereafter, they preferred 7 appeals before the Collector (Appeals) Madras and the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order and remanded the matter to the original authority with a direction that the original authority should furnish all the materials to the importers on which the department had relied upon for enhancing the value. On remand, the Assistant Collector of Customs again without any discussion on the various points raised by the importers and without considering the abundant documents and records, reiterated the same findings and rejected the importer's case. While so doing, the Assistant Collector on remand did not furnish any material evidence which was required to have been disclosed in terms of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order of remand. Again aggrieved with this order of j the Assistant Collector, the importers preferred the appeal contending on the following points:

(3.) THE Commissioner after a detailed consideration and after taking into consideration several case laws in the matter, upheld their contention and allowed their appeals. Being aggrieved with the said order, the Revenue has filed the present appeals.