2011 (7) TMI 934 - AT - Customs

Undervaluation - Confiscation - On the ground that on an examination it was found that declared value of hobbing machines as examined by the Chartered Engineer who opined that the machines were made manufactured in the year 1992 -1993 and they have residual life of more than 10 years - the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the lower authority without giving any proper findings. The findings recorded by the Ld. Commissioner are very sketchy and do not correspond with the final conclusions arrived at - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order-in-appeal setting aside order-in-original for imported second-hand machinery, confiscation, penalties under Customs Act, 1962, lack of proper findings by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), remand for reconsideration following principles of natural justice.

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal against the order-in-appeal where the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order-in-original related to the import of second-hand machinery, specifically gear hobbing and grinding machines. The adjudicating authority had rejected the declared value of the machinery based on examination by a Chartered Engineer, indicating that the machines were manufactured in 1992-1993 with a residual life of over 10 years. Consequently, the authority confiscated the goods under the provisions of the EXIM Policy restricting import of second-hand goods, with an option for redemption upon payment of fines. Penalties were imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, with the respondents waiving the issuance of a show-cause notice.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the lower authority's order without providing detailed and proper findings. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner's findings were inadequate and did not align with the final conclusions reached. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration of the issue, emphasizing the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by ordering a remand for further review and consideration, keeping all issues open for reevaluation by the Commissioner.