ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After rejecting the stay petition of the revenue, we take up the appeal itself for disposal.
2. The Commissioner of Customs vide his order has set aside the order of the lower authorities and has permitted re-assessment of the goods. While doing so he has observed as under:
“It was the contention of the appellant that no proper market enquiry was conducted by the department. Along with the parawise commends, department sent a report where enquiries made form the different markets, viz., Vileparle, Powai, Andheri, etc. for different items was shown in a table. I find appellant contention was to correct that enquiries were not properly conducted. The name of the shop and name of the person from whom such enquiries were made was not mentioned, nor any evidence of such enquiry such as signature of the person and sale bills etc. were placed on record. Without name of the person, shops, name of the product, model No. etc. market enquiry cannot be accepted. In case the appellant wants to cross check or cross examine the person, how he would do without such information. Further, how from the local market value of similar goods, the assessable value, was arrived at, no calculation was given, so the market value of similar goods, and the assessable value of the present goods based on such market enquiry was arbitrarily fixed hence set aside.
Hence order in original is set aside and department is directed to re-assess the good within two months from he date of receipt of this order, after following the principles of natural justice and the valuation rule”
3. The revenue in their memorandum of appeal has advanced the following grounds of appeal :
“The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), CSI Airport, Mumbai is not empowered to remand the case for denovo adjudication in terms of sub section (3) of Section 128A as it stands after amendment to the sub Section on 11/05/2001.
The reason for remanding the case for denovo adjudication on the ground that there was no deliberate mis-declaration and that merely not mentioning of the Brand cannot be a reason for rejection of transaction value. In this case not only the brand name in respect of the items has not been mentioned/declared, even the quantity actually imported has been found to be different from the quantities shown in the invoice. Hence, invoice cannot be correlated with goods actually imported. Therefore, invoice value has been correctly rejected.
Admittedly, the importer did not produce any evidence, whatsoever, of value of similar/identical goods during the original adjudication proceedings. The evidence produced before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), CSI Airport is additional evidence. This evidence could be taken on record only in terms of Rule 5(1) after recording reason as provided for under Rule 5(2) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. This has not been done”.
4. After hearing both sides and after going through the above grounds of appeal, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He has set aside the order and has simply directed the revenue to reassess the goods. No infirmity is found in the view of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.