2017 (2) TMI 45 - AT - Customs

Imposition of joint and several duty liability and penalty on 8 appellants - Natural justice - rejection of declared value - whether the imposition of Duty liability on a group of persons jointly and severally, is justified? - Held that - The CESTAT Delhi in the case of M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd. 2014 (3) TMI 983 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , hold that the demands cannot be confirmed severally and jointly against the assessee. Principles of natural justice demand that the noticee appellants have to be provided with the relevant documents/evidences, so that they could get the opportunity to give their explanation and defence themselves. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against OIO-12/COMMR / OA/2006 dt 20.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Customs), Ahmedabad.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the Order in Original (OIO) that rejected the declared value of imported goods, specifically Mobile Phones and Parts. The OIO re-determined the value and confirmed a differential duty of Customs, along with penalties, to be recovered from the appellants. The appellants argued that duty liability cannot be imposed jointly and severally on multiple individuals. They also claimed that they were deprived of relevant documents necessary for their defense. The appellants contended that the enhancement of the goods' value was illegal. They cited case laws to support their arguments, such as M/s Rimjhim Ispat Ltd vs CCE, Kanpur and M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd vs CCE, Delhi.

The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. However, upon examining the submissions, case laws, and facts, the Tribunal found that the duty liability imposed jointly and severally on the appellants was not justified. Citing the case of M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd., the Tribunal held that demands cannot be confirmed jointly and severally. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing relevant documents to the appellants for a fair defense, in line with principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, the Commissioner (Customs), Ahmedabad, for fresh adjudication within four months, allowing the appellants the opportunity for a proper hearing and submission of evidence.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, directing the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the case within a specified timeframe, ensuring the appellants' right to a fair defense and due process.