9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1474 - AT - CustomsRejection of declared value of the goods seized under rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007 - redetermination the same in terms of rule 5 - HELD THAT - There is force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The officer who had issued the show cause notice could not have decided the appeal filed against the order adjudicating the said show cause notice. The impugned order dated 10.12.2018, therefore, deserves to be set aside on this ground alone and is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Challenge against order dismissing appeal on grounds of officer issuing show cause notice also deciding the appeal. Analysis: The appeal in question was filed against an order dated 10.12.2018 by the Commissioner (Appeals), which dismissed the appellant's appeal against the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner had rejected the declared value of seized goods under rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules 2007 and redetermined the value in accordance with rule 5, confirming duty demand, interest, and penalty. The appellant challenged the order on merits and also raised a procedural issue. The appellant's counsel argued that the appeal should be set aside because the show cause notice was issued by an officer from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, who later became the Commissioner (Appeals) deciding the appeal. The department's representative contended that there was no legal bar to the same officer issuing the notice and deciding the appeal later. The President, Justice Dilip Gupta, acknowledged the merit in the appellant's argument. He concluded that the officer who issued the show cause notice should not have decided the appeal against the same notice. Therefore, he set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2018 solely on this ground and allowed the appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 17.08.2022. The issue of the same officer issuing a show cause notice and later deciding the appeal against it was deemed to be a procedural irregularity that warranted setting aside the order and allowing the appeal. The principle of natural justice and fairness was upheld by ensuring that the same officer does not act as both the accuser and the adjudicator in the same case.
|
