2009 (2) TMI 641 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the impugned order by the Department.
2. Lack of discussion on detailed facts in the lower appellate Authority's order.
3. Appeal for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Remand of the matter to the original Authority for fresh decision.

Analysis:
1. The Department, represented by Shri K.P. Singh, challenged the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Authority, arguing that the order did not discuss the facts of the case and how relevant case laws applied. It was highlighted that the PVC resin seized by Customs Authorities, allegedly of Korean origin, was in large quantity. The claimant of the goods stated purchasing them from M/s. Balaji Plastics, but discrepancies were found in connecting the goods to the Bill of Entry. The Departmental Representative emphasized that the lower appellate Authority failed to address these crucial details in the order.

2. The judgment noted that the lower appellate Authority's order lacked a detailed analysis of the case facts. The Authority merely referenced a few case laws and concluded that their ratio applied to the present case, leading to setting aside of the order-in-original. The judgment emphasized that a speaking order, which addresses detailed facts, was necessary for a decision to be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside due to this deficiency.

3. Despite setting aside the impugned order, the judgment considered the submissions from both sides. It was deemed necessary to grant the Respondents another opportunity to establish the relationship of the impugned goods with earlier imports. The matter was remanded to the original Authority for a fresh decision, allowing for the examination of correct import documents. The original Authority was directed to gather additional evidence from M/s. Jewel Polymers to conclusively determine the connection of the impugned goods with previous imports.

4. In conclusion, all four appeals were remanded with specific instructions for the original Authority to reevaluate the case based on the fresh evidence to be obtained from M/s. Jewel Polymers. The judgment also addressed and disposed of the four Cross Objections filed by the Respondents. The decision was pronounced in open court, emphasizing the need for a more detailed and factually supported order in such matters.