2014 (10) TMI 839 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported computer products and parts - Imposition of penalty - Held that - In this case unlike normal quasi judicial proceedings where Revenue is not represented the Revenue was also represented. Quite often we also take notes during the hearing and pass orders based on our notings thereafter and our notes are not made available to the parties. Some times we may ask for written submissions and sometimes not. In this case the Commissioner has gone out of the way to provide soft copies of records of personal hearing so that parties do not have any grievance. In this case he has gone an extra mile and has not only prepared detailed records of personal hearing but has also made them available in the form of soft copies. That being the position if the Commissioner has taken into account the submissions made during the personal hearings and if that is shown it should be sufficient. Principles of natural justice have not been observed without considering the facts and circumstances in detail we will be virtually reviewing our own order which is contrary to law. We have to take note of the fact that at the time of hearing the stay application also the matter had been heard in great detail in view of the large amount of Revenue involved. Therefore it would not be appropriate for us to sit in judgment over the conclusion reached by the Tribunal at the time of hearing the stay application that in this case there is no need to remand the matter to the Commissioner for non-observance of principles of natural justice. In fact in cases like this which take a lot of time for hearing it may always be appropriate to remand the matter at the time when stay application is heard so that the time spent for conducting the final hearing and stay application can be preserved for hearing other matters especially in view of the fact that Bangalore Bench has been consistently having very high pendency throughout a period of 3 or 4 years in the past. When this tribunal did not do so at the time of hearing the stay application and chose to consider the case on merits it would not be appropriate to take a contrary view now. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of imported computer products and parts.
2. Alleged non-consideration of rejoinders by the Commissioner.
3. Alleged haste in passing the impugned orders.
4. Principles of natural justice.
5. Request for remand to the Commissioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of Imported Computer Products and Parts:
The primary issue in the appeals was the valuation of imported computer products and parts by M/s. Hewlett Packard India Sales Ltd. (HPISPL). The investigation led to a confirmed demand of over Rs. 961 crores against HPISPL, along with penalties imposed on HPISPL and other appellants.

2. Alleged Non-Consideration of Rejoinders by the Commissioner:
The appellants contended that the Commissioner did not consider their detailed rejoinders submitted on 27-3-2012 before passing the impugned orders on 30-3-2012 and 31-3-2012. They argued that the Commissioner could not have adequately considered all the points in such a short time. The learned special counsel for the Revenue countered this by stating that all points were considered during the extensive hearings and that the Commissioner had acknowledged the written submissions in the impugned order.

3. Alleged Haste in Passing the Impugned Orders:
The appellants argued that the orders were passed in undue haste, drawing parallels with the Orkay Silk Mills case, where an order was allegedly pre-determined and passed without proper consideration. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had conducted detailed hearings and provided soft copies of the personal hearing records, suggesting that the Commissioner had sufficient time to prepare the order.

4. Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants claimed a violation of the principles of natural justice, asserting that the Commissioner did not wait for the corrected version of the personal hearing records before passing the orders. The Tribunal, however, observed that the Commissioner had gone beyond the usual requirements by providing soft copies of the hearing records and that the detailed hearings allowed the Commissioner to consider all submissions adequately.

5. Request for Remand to the Commissioner:
Initially, the appellants requested a remand to the Commissioner for a detailed order considering all points in the rejoinders. The Tribunal, however, decided against remanding the matter, emphasizing the need to hear the case in detail to ensure justice. The Tribunal also noted that during the stay application hearing, it had already decided that there was no need for a remand based on the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be heard finally rather than remanding it to the Commissioner. The appeals were scheduled for a detailed hearing from 6-4-2015 to 28-4-2015, with the Tribunal emphasizing that none of the interim observations should be taken as conclusions on the merits of the case.