9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Duty demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act - Confiscation of consignments - Penalty under Section 112(b)(i) & (ii) of the Act - Violation of Import Trade Control Restriction - Violation of provisions of the Customs Act - Verification report and principles of natural justice Duty Demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act: The Commissioner of Customs confirmed a duty demand against the appellants for Rs. 12,72,333 under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The demand was based on the allegation that the appellants, who were carpet manufacturers/exporters, sold Import Export Pass Books issued under the DEEC Scheme in the local Bombay market, violating Import Trade Control Restrictions and Customs Act provisions. Confiscation of Consignments and Penalty under Section 112(b)(i) & (ii) of the Act: The Commissioner confiscated 2 consignments of dyes and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs on the appellants under Section 112(b)(i) & (ii) of the Act. The appellants contended that the goods were not disposed of in Mumbai but transported to their factory in UP for manufacturing carpets, supported by documents like Form 31 and transport receipts. They argued that the verification report by officers confirmed the genuineness of the documents, but the Commissioner did not provide them with a copy of the verification report, leading to a violation of natural justice. Violation of Import Trade Control Restriction and Customs Act Provisions: The duty demand and penalties were imposed on the grounds of violating Import Trade Control Restrictions and provisions of the Customs Act. The appellants' submissions regarding the utilization of goods in manufacturing carpets at their UP factory were supported by documentary evidence, raising questions about the verification process conducted by the officers and the lack of disclosure of the verification report to the appellants. Verification Report and Principles of Natural Justice: The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument that the principles of natural justice were contravened due to the non-disclosure of the verification report by the Commissioner. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to provide a copy of the verification report to the appellants and allow them a reasonable opportunity to present their defense before issuing fresh orders, to be completed within three months from the date of the Tribunal's order. This detailed analysis summarizes the legal judgment issued by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, addressing the duty demand, confiscation of consignments, penalties, violations of trade control restrictions and Customs Act provisions, and the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.
|
