2015 (9) TMI 761 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential duty - Demand of CVD - Confiscation u/s 111(m) - Penalty u/s 112 - Held that - Goods were seized by the Customs and provisionally released on execution of bond and bank guarantee. The adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that the goods are undervalued and therefore, he re-determined the value and demanded a differential duty. He has also held that the importer is liable to pay CVD on the basis of MRP. No quantification of duty has been made by the adjudicating authority. Further, the issue of confiscability of the items and the imposition of penalty proposed in the show-cause notice has not been examined by the adjudicating authority. Thus, there are many infirmities in the impugned order. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of non-confiscation of goods and non-imposition of penalty and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for consideration of these issues raised in the show-cause notice in accordance with law. Needless to say that the importer should be given an adequate opportunity of defending their case before the denovo order is passed. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding differential duty on imported goods.
2. Confiscation and penalty not imposed by adjudicating authority.
3. Grounds of application challenging the legality of the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Goa, regarding the payment of a differential duty on imported goods. The adjudicating authority determined the value of the goods and ordered the payment of CVD based on the MRP. However, confiscation and penalties were not imposed on the importer. The appeal contended that the impugned order was flawed as it did not address the charges proposed in the show-cause notice, including confiscation and penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act.

2. The Revenue's representative reiterated the grounds of appeal during the hearing. Despite notice, no one appeared for the respondent. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the goods were seized by Customs and provisionally released. The adjudicating authority found the goods undervalued, demanded a differential duty, and required payment of CVD based on MRP. However, no quantification of duty was provided, and the issue of confiscation and penalties proposed in the show-cause notice was not addressed. The Tribunal identified several deficiencies in the impugned order, particularly the lack of examination of confiscation and penalty aspects.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order with respect to non-confiscation of goods and non-imposition of penalties. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a thorough consideration of the issues raised in the show-cause notice in compliance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of granting the importer a fair opportunity to present their defense before a new decision is made. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for remand, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.