2002 (5) TMI 345 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods deemed hazardous.
2. Orders-in-Original passed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs.
3. Appeals filed against the Orders-in-Original.
4. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejecting the appeals.
5. Grounds of limitation for dismissing the appeal.
6. Admission of appeals and stay granted.

Analysis:

1. The Customs authorities considered the imported Zinc Dross hazardous, leading to proceedings against the importers. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs passed Orders-in-Original confiscating the goods under Section 111(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1962, due to the absence of a required license. The importers were given the option to redeem the consignments by paying fines and penalties. The penalties were imposed on the appellants, who subsequently filed appeals against these orders.

2. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the appeals, citing that the appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their claim that they received the speaking orders belatedly. The Commissioner maintained that the appellants were aware of the orders due to the proximity between the order dates and the payment of duties, fines, and penalties. The Commissioner dismissed the appeals based on the grounds of limitation, stating that the appeals could have been filed earlier.

3. The appeals were made against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The appellants argued that they were not provided with the speaking orders promptly and filed the appeals within the stipulated time under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants presented original copies of the orders with dispatch numbers from the customs office, showing delayed receipt. The appellate authority acknowledged the delayed dispatch of speaking orders and allowed the admission of appeals, granting a stay and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

4. The appellate authority found that the delayed dispatch of speaking orders affected the appellants' ability to file timely appeals. Considering the evidence presented, the authority concluded that the appeals were not time-barred and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The matter was remanded for a new assessment on merits, ensuring the appellants' right to a fair hearing before a final decision.

5. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by remand, providing the appellants with an opportunity for a fair consideration of their case based on the merits presented.