IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P.
Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Ruma Pal, JJ.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS
Versus
UNIVERSAL
SYNTHETICS
Civil Appeal No. 1724 of 1997,
decided on 3-2-2000
Valuation (Customs) - Transaction value when
rejectable - Tribunal when itself noticed that the absence of particulars like
index number and strength were suspicious but denied the rejection of
transaction value in the absence of other supporting material - Matter remanded
to the Tribunal to consider afresh what would be the appropriate value to be
placed on the imported goods - Customs authorities were unjustified in so
loading the price that it was equivalent to the price of goods of German origin
- But that is not to say that, in the circumstances, the transaction value
ought not to have been rejected - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962.
[paras
1, 2]
[Order].
- We find
that the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal itself noticed
that the absence of particulars like index number and strength were suspicious
but it went on to say that by itself, in the absence of other supporting
material, was not sufficient to reject the transaction value.
2.Having heard learned Counsel, we are of the view that the appeal should be heard by the Tribunal
afresh to consider what would be the appropriate value to be placed on the
imported goods, in the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal was right in
saying that the Customs Authorities were unjustified in so loading the price
that it was equivalent to the price of goods of German origin. But that is not
to say that, in the circumstances, the transaction value ought not to have been
rejected and the appropriate value placed on the imported goods.
3.It shall be open to both parties to place appropriate evidence before the Tribunal and
the Tribunal will hear and decide the appeal afresh in the light of our
observations. Having regard to the time that has elapsed, this should be done
as expeditiously as possible, and within four months.
4.The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. Appeal No. 149/95A is restored to
the file of the Tribunal, New Delhi to be heard and disposed of afresh as
aforestated.
5.No order as to costs.
______