2015 (1) TMI 886 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential duty - Mis declaration of value and goods - case was made out on the basis of the statement of Shri K. Sathyanarayana, agent of the foreign supplier as well as other relevant materials - Held that - in the case of other importers of the same goods for the same period, the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Sales Agencies (2008 (6) TMI 415 - CESTAT, CHENNAI), remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with certain directions - counsel submits that the denovo proceedings in the case of Hindustan Sales Agencies (2008 (6) TMI 415 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) is still pending. In our considered view, it is appropriate that the present case should be tagged with the case of Hindustan Sales Agencies (supra) which is still pending before the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of goods and value during importation.
2. Denial of cross-examination of concerned officers and foreign supplier's author.
3. Jurisdiction of DRI officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the misdeclaration of goods and value during the importation of Medium Density Fibre Boards / Plain Particle Boards. The DRI officers found discrepancies, leading to the re-determination of value and confirmation of a differential duty along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order based on the statement of the foreign supplier's agent, Shri K. Sathyanarayana, who had passed away. The appellant requested cross-examination of relevant individuals, which was denied, highlighting a procedural flaw.

2. The appellant contended that similar situations in other cases led to remand for further investigation and cross-examination. The Tribunal's decision in a related case emphasized the importance of natural justice principles, allowing the appellant to challenge incriminating statements and documents. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to conduct de novo adjudication, providing the appellant with opportunities for a final reply, cross-examination of DRI officers, and other competent individuals to disprove statements.

3. A legal question arose concerning the jurisdiction of DRI officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act during the appellant's statement recording process. While the Tribunal did not express a view on this matter, it allowed the appellant to raise this issue before the Commissioner. The judgment highlighted the need for a fair and transparent adjudication process, ensuring the appellant's right to challenge evidence and present a defense effectively.

4. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in line with the principles of natural justice. The appellant was granted a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in customs adjudication. Additionally, the adjudicating authority was directed to expedite the proceedings, considering the pending denovo adjudication in a related case, to ensure timely resolution of the matter.