JUDGMENT
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. These three stay applications are taken up for disposal in these three appeals by this common order since the applicant as a proprietor of 3 different firms has filed these appeals against a similar issues decided by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad and Commissioner of Customs (Adj), Mumbai Customs House as regards the valuation of certain electronic components imported by them.
2. We have heard both sides and find that the ld. advocate for the applicant has pointed out the discrepancies on the relied upon documents obtained from Customs & Excise Department, Hongkong. The said documents do not confirm, to the law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. East Punjab Traders 1997 (89) ELT 11 (SC), in as much as the documents relied upon are photo copies of certain papers obtained and they are not authenticated. The ld. advocate also drew our attention to paragraph 22 and 23 of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad and brought out the discrepancies in the relied upon documents in as much as the quantity and the quality of the products under dispute also prima-facie did not match.
3. The ld. departmental representative submitted that the discrepancies in the relied upon documents are curable defects and the matter could be got cured. As regards the differences in the documents placed in the paper book, the ld. D.R. pointed out that the correct set of documents had not been placed as it was explained. However, he could not substantiate as to what were the copies of documents, which were the correct copies relied upon by the Revenue in the proceedings before the lower authorities. On a question from the Bench, the D.R. could not point out as to which Rule of the Customs Valuation Rules was supposed to be applied and was applied by the lower authorities while determining the valuation on rejection of the invoice value as produced and accepted by the proper officer at the time of assessment of Bs/E in these cases. The ld. advocate, however, drew out attention to paragraph 23 of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad wherein the Commissioner in coming to the conclusion “the quantities broadly tallied” and thereafter he confirmed the value as proposed in the notices. We cannot appreciate at this prima-facie stage the confirmation of mis-declaration of values and penal consequences and duty liability arrived at on the grounds as pointed out to us. We find that the orders impugned before us do not conform to the law relied upon by the Supreme Court or rules of valuation to be determined under the Valuation Rules. We find a strong prima-facie case in favour of the applicant to order a complete stay of recovery and waiver of pre-deposit of the duties and penalties as arrived at by the lower authorities pending the appeals. We order accordingly.
4. Stay applications are disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated in Court)