9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 74 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported, old and used cranes - confiscation due to mis-declaration of value and consequent penalties - cross-examination - principles of natural justice - Held that - the adjudicating authority was in error and more so after the law which is settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE Kolkata II 2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT . The Apex Court in the said judgement has categorically held that principles of natural justice are violated if cross-examination of the witnesses are denied and would make the order nullity. In our view, the law as has been settled by the Apex Court needs to be followed by adjudicating authority. We also note that the adjudicating authority has erred in redetermining the value of the old and used cranes by not applying the CBEC Circular in its entirety. In view of this we find that it is better the adjudicating authority reconsider the issue, appreciate the factual matrix and comes to a conclusion after allowing the cross-examination as sought for by appellants. Since the matters are old, we direct adjudicating authority to dispose of the issue preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Needless to state that adjudicating authority will follow the principles of natural justice before arriving at any conclusion - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Valuation of imported cranes, mis-declaration of value, penalties under Customs Act, denial of cross-examination, application of CBEC Circular, remand to adjudicating authority.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai pertains to appeals against order-in-original No. 83/2014/CAC/CC(I)/AB/GR.V dated 30.06.2014 concerning the valuation of old and used cranes imported by M/s. Banarasi Paper & Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., and the subsequent confiscation and penalties. The issue raised in the appeals revolves around the valuation of the imported cranes and the confiscation due to mis-declaration of value, with penalties imposed under Sections 112 (a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants had sought cross-examination of various individuals to ascertain the valuation process, which was denied. The Tribunal noted that the denial of cross-examination, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE Kolkata II, violates principles of natural justice, rendering the order null and void. The adjudicating authority was found to have erred in not applying the CBEC Circular in determining the value of the cranes. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of following the principles of natural justice and directing a disposal of the issue within six months from the date of receipt of the order. The Departmental Representative argued that the facts in the present case differed from the precedent case of Crown Lifters, highlighting discrepancies in load value certificates. However, after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had incorrectly imposed duty liability on the main appellant for mis-declaration of value and goods description. The penalties were also deemed unjustified. The adjudicating authority's refusal to allow cross-examination and failure to apply the CBEC Circular in full were identified as errors. The Tribunal stressed the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice, as established by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and instructed the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the issue, consider all facts, and reach a conclusion after permitting the cross-examination requested by the appellants. The appeals were disposed of by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings.
|
