9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding mis-sent consignment with diamonds and semi-precious stones declared as samples, valuation discrepancies, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty, and re-export permission. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a case where the Department challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding a mis-sent consignment containing diamonds and semi-precious stones declared as samples. The consignment was sent by a Japanese firm to India, declared as having no commercial value, but later found to contain valuable items. The Department received specific information about the actual contents of the parcel, leading to further examination and valuation discrepancies. The original authority ordered confiscation of the diamonds and garnets, with redemption fines and penalties imposed on the party involved. The request for re-export was rejected, prompting appeals from both the Indian recipient and the Japanese consignor. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original authority's order and permitted re-export to the Japanese consignor. The Department argued that the relationship between the consignor and consignee was discovered during investigation, questioning the re-export permission granted to the Japanese consignor who was not issued a show cause notice and did not participate in the original proceeding. The Department raised objections regarding various aspects of the case. The respondents defended the Commissioner (Appeals) order, stating that the mis-sent consignment was a genuine mistake by the Japanese party and emphasized that the consignor's representation to the Commissioner was not adequately considered by the original authority. Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh consideration, especially regarding the involvement of the Japanese consignor who was not a party in the original proceeding. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside both the Commissioner's and the original authority's orders and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the original authority. The consignor was given the opportunity to make representations with relevant facts, and the original authority was directed to pass a fresh order after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. The Tribunal clarified that they did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving all issues open for the original authority to decide. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the cross-objections were disposed of accordingly. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a fair and thorough reconsideration of the case by the original authority, taking into account all relevant submissions and facts presented by the parties involved.
|
