2019 (12) TMI 1606 - AT - Customs

Retesting of seized goods - it is stated that all the items have been manufactured by him in his workshop and he did not get these items registered under Archaeological Survey of India, Act nor he registered under AAI Act - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority while deciding the matter has not taken into consideration the request made by the appellant and the supplier of the three items Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kumawat for retesting of the seized goods. From perusal of the entire proceedings, it is found that there is force in the submissions which has been made by the appellant as well as by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kumawat. The confiscation of three impugned items including the penalty on Shri Rahul Chauhan and Shri Mukesh Kumar Kumawat do not appear to be justified. However, the original authority is directed to get the subject goods retested from the recognised Gem Jeweller laboratory for determination of the classification of the goods and whether they fall under category of antique and accordingly the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to get the goods retested and decide the matter afresh. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Request for retesting of seized goods not considered by adjudicating authority.
2. Confiscation of items and penalty imposed on individuals challenged.
3. Appeal for retesting and reclassification of goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Request for retesting of seized goods not considered by adjudicating authority
The judgment begins by acknowledging the submission made by the appellant and the supplier regarding the objection to the report provided by the Archaeological Survey of India. It is highlighted that the supplier, in his statement and letter, clearly stated that he manufactured the items in his workshop without registering them under relevant acts. The Tribunal notes that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the request for retesting of the seized goods, which was a crucial aspect overlooked in the decision-making process.

Issue 2: Confiscation of items and penalty imposed on individuals challenged
Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal observed that there was merit in the submissions made by the appellant and the supplier. The judgment points out that the confiscation of the three items and the penalty imposed on the individuals did not seem justified based on the information provided. This discrepancy led the Tribunal to conclude that a reassessment of the situation was necessary, indicating a potential flaw in the initial decision-making process by the adjudicating authority.

Issue 3: Appeal for retesting and reclassification of goods
In light of the above findings, the Tribunal directed the original authority to retest the subject goods at a recognized Gem & Jewellery laboratory. The purpose of this retesting is to determine the classification of the goods and ascertain whether they qualify as antiques. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision based on the results of the retesting process. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of remand, emphasizing the importance of a thorough and accurate assessment in such cases.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the critical issues addressed by the Tribunal, focusing on the need for proper consideration of requests, justification of confiscation and penalties, and the importance of retesting and reclassification in determining the outcome of the case.