- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai v. Adani Exports Ltd. And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The controversy concerns the value to be assigned to imported vitamin mixes for purposes of duty credit under the Passbook Scheme linked to the respondent’s export of prawns and fish products. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, by order dated 5-2-1998, fixed the value at US $ 8.2 per kg and consequently limited the respondent’s duty credit. On 15-4-1998 the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reversed that decision, accepting the respondent’s evidence and fixing the value at US $ 36 per kg. The Department’s appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Madras, was dismissed, the Tribunal affirming the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, then appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding duty credit calculated on a valuation of US $ 36 per kg for the imported vitamin mixes instead of the Department’s valuation of US $ 8.2 per kg.
- Whether the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly shifted the burden of proving the correct value from the importer to the Department.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Commissioner of Customs)
- The lower authorities erred in shifting the burden onto the Department; it was for the importer to prove the higher valuation.
- The Assistant Commissioner correctly relied on prices paid by other importers of similar vitamin mixes, establishing US $ 8.2 per kg as the prevailing value.
- Reference was legitimately made to Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) publications identifying the active ingredients and supporting the lower valuation.
Respondent (Importer)
- The material used by the Assistant Commissioner did not relate to imports that were comparable in chemical composition to the respondent’s vitamin mixes.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal properly preferred the respondent’s documentary evidence of an actual import at US $ 36 per kg, which was more proximate and reliable.
- Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents establishing that findings of fact by the Tribunal are final unless perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Collector of Customs v. Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd., 1988 Supp SCC 796 | The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. | Cited by the respondent to argue that the Supreme Court should not disturb the Tribunal’s factual valuation unless it is perverse. |
| West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd., (2002) 8 SCC 715 | Findings of fact by expert or appellate bodies are not to be interfered with unless perverse or unsupported by material. | Relied on by the respondent; the Supreme Court applied this principle in refusing to re-appreciate the factual valuation evidence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the dispute was purely factual—determining the correct value of the imported vitamin mixes. It compared the evidentiary bases used by the competing authorities:
- The Assistant Commissioner had used prices paid by unspecified “similar importers” and MPEDA publications.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal relied on the respondent’s documentary evidence concerning an actual, proximate import used in producing the exported prawns.
The Tribunal found, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the chemical composition of vitamin mixes varied significantly by brand and formula. A letter from MPEDA confirmed that concentrations differ according to brand, feed formula, and type of feed. Therefore, values drawn from allegedly comparable imports lacking compositional similarity could not reliably determine the respondent’s valuation.
Because the documentary evidence accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal related directly to the precise vitamin mix used by the respondent, the Supreme Court held that their choice of evidence was neither irrational nor perverse. Consequently, no legal ground existed to displace the Tribunal’s factual finding or to hold that the burden of proof had been wrongly allocated.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed.
As a result, the valuation of US $ 36 per kg for the respondent’s imported vitamin mixes—and the corresponding duty credit under the Passbook Scheme—stands affirmed. The decision resolves the dispute between the parties but does not establish any new legal rule; it reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with well-reasoned factual determinations of the Tribunal unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
N. Santosh Hegde, J.— These appeals are preferred by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, against an order made by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras (the Tribunal). The short question that arises for our consideration in these cases is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing duty credit at a rate claimed by the respondent under the Passbook Scheme in regard to the import of vitamin mixes in favour of the respondent by reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai dated 5-2-1998 and accepting the order of the Commissioner of Appeals.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs by his order dated 5-2-1998 held that the value accepted by the Department at US $ 8.2 per kg for vitamin mix imported for the purpose of passbook credit against the exports made of prawns and fish products is correct, hence, he rejected the claim of the respondent for fixing the said value at US $ 36 per kg. In an appeal filed by the respondent herein, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, by his order dated 15-4-1998 allowed the same, setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and held that the claim for credit at US $ 36 per kg made by the respondent for the said import was justified from the evidence produced by the parties, hence, granted the relief sought for by the respondent. In an appeal filed by the Department before the Tribunal, as stated above, the Tribunal accepted the view of the Commissioner of Appeals while dismissing the appeal of the appellant herein.
3. Mr Raju Ramachandran, learned Additional Solicitor General strenuously contended that the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal erroneously shifted the onus on the Department to establish the value of vitamin mixes imported, by coming to the conclusion that the Department has not established that the evidence produced by the respondents, was not creditworthy, thus erroneously shifted the burden on the appellant. He contended that the Assistant Commissioner based on similar imports made by other parties had correctly come to the conclusion that the value of the vitamin mixes imported at the relevant time was only US $ 8.2 per kg. He also contended that the Assistant Commissioner while coming to the said conclusion justly relied upon the publication made by the Marine Product Export Development Authority (MPEDA) which indicated what would be the active ingredients in the vitamin mixes imported by such importers and came to the conclusion that the price of American dollars 8.2 per kg was the correct price.
4. Mr Ashok H. Desai and Mr Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel, however, controverted the said argument of learned Additional Solicitor General and pointed out from the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that the material relied on by the Assistant Commissioner for arriving at the conclusion that the value of the imported goods was only US $ 8.2 per kg was not based on similar importation of vitamin mixes as was involved in the import relied on by the respondent. They also pointed out that the material relied upon by the Assistant Commissioner did not pertain to the imports made by any of the suppliers of shrimps to the respondents. They placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in Collector of Customs v. Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd. 1988 Supp SCC 796 to contend that this Court has always treated the Tribunal as the final forum on facts and further relied on a judgment of this Court in W.B Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd. (2002) 8 SCC 715 to contend that unless the finding of fact of such forum is perverse or not based on material on record, this Court would not interfere with such a finding of fact.
5. Having noticed the arguments of the parties, it is clear that the issue before us is one of fixation of value on imported vitamin mixes, credit for which is sought by the respondents. While the Department contends that the same is worth only US $ 8.2 per kg, the respondents claim that the same is worth US $ 36 per kg. From the above-contested dispute, it is clear that the issue is one of fact and not involving a question of law and which will have to be adjudicated on the material produced by the parties.
6. While the Assistant Commissioner relied on the importation price paid for by some similar importers, the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal chose to rely upon the document produced by the respondent though of a single import. The Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal in this regard came to the conclusion that the material produced by the respondents was more proximate for deciding the issue in question rather than the material relied upon by the original authority. The Tribunal and the Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that the quality of import of vitamin mixes made by various importers on whose importation value the original authority relied upon, was not of a comparable quality because the chemical composition of such goods widely differed from the chemical composition of goods imported and relied on by the respondent, hence, they held it would not be correct to rely upon such incomparable material to fix the disputed valuation. The Tribunal also noticed from the analysis placed on record that the difference between the two types of imports representing two different costs of importation was very wide and certainly not marginal but the vitamin ingredients used in the vitamin mixes imported by the two parties are not the same, therefore, it came to the conclusion that when there is such a wide difference in the use of active ingredients in the products imported, the same cannot reflect the true value of the products in question unless such imports are of the same quality. Therefore, the Tribunal thought it safe to rely on the evidence showing the value of vitamin mix which was used in the production of prawn exported by the respondent.
7. The Tribunal also considered a letter written by MPEDA which had stated that:
“As regards the concentration/percentage of vitamin mixes for preparation of shrimps feed, it is difficult to give the exact details and vary according to the brands/manufacturer/feed formulae and types of feed.”
8. From the above also, it is clear that concentration/percentage of vitamin mixes for preparation of shrimp feed differs from brands/manufacturer/feed formulae and types of feed, therefore, the safest material to rely upon would be the actual importation cost incurred on that type or category of vitamin mixes used in the preparation of shrimp feed by the supplier of shrimps and fish products. Since such material was available and the same was relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
9. From the above discussion, it is clear that the Tribunal has applied its mind to the material available on record and on that basis came to the conclusion that the value fixed by the Commissioner of Appeals was a just value. We are unable to agree with the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the finding as to the valuation made by the Tribunal either suffers from any perversity or is not based on the material on record calling for our interference.
10. For the reasons stated above, these appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed.
Alert