2017 (2) TMI 1541 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential duty alongwith interest and penalty - finalization of assessments or not - importer did not produce any documents to show the fact of final assessment - HELD THAT - There have been factual mistakes in the impugned order. The impugned order wrongly notes that provisional assessments were finalized and the goods were finally assessed. When the goods have not been finally assessed, the findings given in the impugned order cannot be sustained - the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for denovo adjudication within four months of the receipt of this order after giving fresh opportunity of personal hearing and submissions of documents to both the sides. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dropping of proceedings by Commissioner of Custom - Classification of imported goods - Finalization of assessments - Remand for denovo adjudication.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi pertained to the dropping of proceedings against the respondent, a company named Ms. Nav Shakti Industries Pvt. Ltd, by the Commissioner of Custom (adjudication) Delhi. The respondent had imported goods declared as 'printing paper uncoated in reels' and claimed classification under a specific Customs Tariff Heading and exemption from Customs duty. However, Customs authorities believed the goods to be 'Newsprints' falling under a different classification. Samples were sent for testing, and the test results confirmed the goods as 'Newsprints.' Subsequently, a show cause notice (SCN) was issued demanding differential duty, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner, in an order dated 24.12.2013, dropped the proceedings against the respondent. The Revenue appealed this decision before the Tribunal.

The Revenue, represented by the Ld. AR, contended that the impugned order incorrectly stated that the goods under question were finally assessed, emphasizing that there had been no finalization of assessments. It was argued that the importer failed to provide any documents proving final assessment, leading to the erroneous conclusion in the impugned order.

Upon careful examination of the facts and submissions, the Tribunal found factual errors in the impugned order. It noted that the order inaccurately mentioned the finalization of provisional assessments when, in reality, the goods were not conclusively assessed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for denovo adjudication within four months. The Commissioner was directed to provide both parties with a fresh opportunity for a personal hearing and submission of documents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for further adjudication, highlighting the importance of accurate assessment procedures and the need for a fair and thorough reconsideration of the matter by the Commissioner within the specified timeframe.