2003 (7) TMI 736 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Misdeclaration of goods as prime quality
- Violation of principles of natural justice
- Consideration of expert opinions
- Confiscation of goods under Customs Act

Misdeclaration of Goods as Prime Quality:
The case involved the misdeclaration of imported steel slabs and blooms as prime quality, leading to proceedings initiated by the Commissioner for misdeclaration. The appellants initially requested re-export of the goods and submitted expert opinions from various sources, including the National Metallurgical Laboratory (NML). The Commissioner, based on NML's opinion, concluded that the goods were non-alloy steel blooms/slabs of seconds/defective quality, not eligible for concessional duty rates.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued a violation of natural justice principles, stating that the second NML report was obtained without their knowledge and not provided to them, leading to a lack of opportunity to contest the evidence. They contended that all evidence on record should have been considered, including opinions from other experts like IIT Chennai and S.G.S. India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal agreed, noting a clear violation of natural justice and set aside the impugned orders for de novo adjudication.

Consideration of Expert Opinions:
The Commissioner's decision to solely rely on NML's opinion and disregard other expert reports was challenged. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering all expert opinions available, especially when there is a discrepancy between reports. The appellant's request for re-examination of experts and re-evaluation of opinions in the presence of department officials was granted to ensure a fair assessment.

Confiscation of Goods under Customs Act:
While the Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods, no redemption fine was imposed as the appellants' request for re-export was accepted, subject to a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case for re-evaluation and consideration of all expert opinions aimed to address the procedural and substantive issues raised by the appellants, ensuring a just and thorough adjudication process.