2017 (5) TMI 1437 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of description and value of induction Cooker - benefit of N/N. 21/12 - Held that - letters have been issued by the Revenue to the known addresses and the appellant did not take due care in making arrangement for delivery of letters in the given addresses. They have not intimated revised address etc. to the Revenue. However, considering that defense of the appellant has to be considered before finalization of the adjudication, we find it fit and necessary to remand the matter back to the original authority for a fresh adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 21/12 for mobile phones in 15 shipments.
2. Mis-declaration of description and value of induction cooker.
3. Adjudication of the case ex-parte.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs regarding the denial of exemption under Notification No. 21/12 for mobile phones imported in 15 shipments and mis-declaration of the description and value of an induction cooker. The Principal Commissioner adjudicated the matter by enhancing the value of imported goods, ordering confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of a fine, confirming customs duty, and imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's plea focused on the adjudication being ex-parte and the violation of principles of natural justice due to the lack of access to relied upon documents to contest the allegations in the show cause notice.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the case was adjudicated ex-parte as the appellant did not receive all relied upon documents to provide a detailed reply. The appellant emphasized the need for due process and claimed that the order could not stand due to the violation of natural justice principles. On the other hand, the Revenue submitted that the appellant was not easily traceable at the declared addresses, and despite notices being pasted at known addresses, the appellant failed to respond adequately. The Revenue contended that the appellant's claim of a violation of natural justice was not acceptable given the circumstances.

3. The Tribunal considered both arguments and noted that the case was decided without recording the defense of the appellant as they did not file a reply or appear for a personal hearing. While acknowledging the appellant's request for relied upon documents to prepare a defense against the show cause notice, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not take sufficient care in ensuring proper communication with the Revenue. In light of the importance of considering the appellant's defense before finalizing the adjudication, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the original authority for a fresh adjudication. The appellant was directed to collect the relied upon documents and other records from the Department within two weeks, file a reply with supporting documents within four weeks, and have an opportunity for a hearing before the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and disposed of the appeal by emphasizing the need for a fair adjudication process that respects the principles of natural justice. The decision highlighted the importance of providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their defense and access the necessary documents for a proper adjudication of the case.