2014 (12) TMI 813 - AT - Customs

Import of marble slab - claim of exemption from Basic Excise Duty and SAD under Notification 85/98-Cus dated 05.11.98 as amended by Notification No.41/2002-Cus dated 12.04.2002 and Notification No.40/2002-Cus dated 12.04.2002 - Demand of differential duty - Undervaluation of goods - Confiscation of goods - whether the imported goods were polished marbles , arising out of manufacturing process undertaken in the factory premises of the exporter in Nepal or the rough marbles - Held that - Commissioner has not given his findings on the various issues raised and discussed and therefore, the same is non-speaking order and accordingly, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remitted back to the ld.Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after giving his categorical findings on each of the issues raised above. It is made clear that an adequate opportunity of hearing should be granted to the Appellants and copy of the test memo/trade opinion, the seizure memo and any other relied upon documents should be furnished to the Appellants before deciding their case. All issues are kept open and both sides are at liberty to produce evidences in their support. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Importation of marble slabs from Nepal, classification of goods, benefit of customs notifications, confiscation of goods, differential duty, imposition of penalties, validity of documents submitted, statements of importer, manufacturing process, value enhancement, seizure of goods, findings of the Commissioner, remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The main issue in this case was determining whether the imported goods were "polished marbles" or "rough marbles." The Commissioner concluded that the goods were rough marbles and not eligible for the benefits of specific customs notifications. This decision was based on statements made by one of the directors of the importing firm, admitting that the goods were not polished marbles. However, the consultant for the appellants argued that the manufacturing process in Nepal involved converting rough marble blocks into polished output, supported by documents submitted. The Commissioner's order lacked findings on crucial aspects, leading to a non-speaking order. The Tribunal decided to remand the case for fresh adjudication with specific findings on each issue.

2. Validity of Documents and Statements:
The appellants submitted various documents, including process flow charts, cost sheets, and certificates to prove the manufacturing process in Nepal. On the other hand, the statements made by the importer were used against them, with the Revenue arguing that the statements were not dictated by DRI officials and were accepted by the appellants. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of findings on whether samples were tested or trade opinions were obtained, indicating gaps in the Commissioner's decision-making process.

3. Confiscation of Goods and Value Enhancement:
The Commissioner had confiscated the seized goods and imposed a redemption fine, but the consultant argued that no seizure of goods had occurred. Additionally, the value was enhanced based on certain data without providing the appellants with relevant Bills of Entry to verify the grade and quality of the imported goods. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the seizure process and the lack of supporting evidence for value enhancement, leading to the decision to remand the case for further clarification.

4. Remand for Fresh Adjudication:
Given the inadequacies in the Commissioner's order and the need for specific findings on critical issues, the Tribunal allowed all appeals by way of remand. It emphasized the importance of granting the appellants an adequate opportunity for hearing and providing them with essential documents before reaching a final decision. Both parties were given the liberty to present additional evidence to support their respective positions during the fresh adjudication process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the complexities involved in the case and the significance of proper documentation, statements, and procedural fairness in customs-related matters.