2020 (2) TMI 1430 - AT - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice - it is contended that Revenue was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) before passing the order - Confiscation of Diamonds and re-export of same - HELD THAT - There are no merit in the apprehension of the Revenue that on payment of fine, the appellant would redeem the confiscated diamonds and re-export the same. We find that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the evidence concluded that there has been misdeclaration of re-imported diamonds, denied the benefit of exemption to the same and upheld its confiscation and penalty. The re-imported diamonds are not absolutely confiscated. After payment of the fine and penalty amount, the option lies with the appellant either to re-export the goods or clear the same for home consumption on compliance with laid down procedure. There are no condition imposed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding confiscation and penalty. Besides, we do not find any substance in the allegation advanced on behalf of the Revenue that there is violation of principles of natural justice as the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the case without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Revenue. The Revenue could not make out a prima facie case that the order is ex facie illegal or passed without jurisdiction or there is an error apparent on the face of the order - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's stay application seeking stay of the Order-in-Appeal, Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, Misdeclaration of re-imported diamonds, Confiscation of diamonds, Imposition of penalty, Compliance with laid down procedure, Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice by Revenue, Prima facie case for ex facie illegality or jurisdictional error in the order.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking a stay of the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowing re-export of imported goods. The Revenue contended that there was a violation of principles of natural justice as they were not given an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly analyzed the evidence and found that out of 101 diamonds exported earlier, 27 were identified upon re-import, while the remaining 74 did not match the declared specifications. The Commissioner held that neither the 74 pieces nor the 27 pieces of diamonds were eligible for the benefit of a specific notification. The Commissioner upheld the confiscation of the diamonds and imposed a fine and penalty on the appellant.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's apprehension that the appellant would redeem the confiscated diamonds and re-export them upon payment of the fine. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's decision regarding misdeclaration of re-imported diamonds, denial of exemption benefits, and the imposition of penalties. It was clarified that after paying the fine and penalty, the appellant could choose to re-export the goods or clear them for home consumption following the prescribed procedure. The Tribunal noted that no additional conditions were imposed by the Commissioner and rejected the Revenue's claim of a violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to establish a prima facie case of ex facie illegality, jurisdictional error, or an apparent error in the order. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Stay Application, deeming it devoid of merit, and stated that the appeal would proceed as scheduled. The judgment highlighted the importance of analyzing evidence, following due process, and upholding the principles of natural justice in customs matters.