2017 (6) TMI 93 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of quantity as well as nature of product - Held that - when the impugned order was passed no original order was existing, as the same got merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.12.2012. As such, the impugned order has no legal sanctity and cannot be enforced. It is clear that the earlier first appellate order is by the same office and as such not taken note of, which resulted in the present order. As such, we find the present impugned order lacks legal sanctity and cannot be enforced. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of quantity and nature of imported product, imposition of penalties on main importers and shipping agent, appeal against penalties, enforcement of impugned order without legal sanctity.

The case involved M/s. Pankaj Enterprises, who imported heavy melting scrap from Cyprus and sold it on high seas sale basis to M/s. Shirish Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd. The issue was mis-declaration of quantity and nature of the product in the bill of entry filed by M/s. Shirish Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Penalties of varying amounts were imposed on the main importers and the shipping agent. Appeals were filed against these penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of M/s. Shirish Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Pankaj Enterprises but upheld penalties on them in a subsequent appeal by the Revenue. The impugned order imposed penalties and confirmed a demand of Customs Duty on M/s. Shirish Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and the other appellants.

Upon review, it was argued that the impugned order lacked legal sanctity as the original order had been appealed and allowed by the same first appellate authority. The Revenue contended that the first appellate authority's order was passed hastily without waiting for the review period. It was also noted that the appellants did not bring up the existence of the earlier appellate order during the second proceedings. The Tribunal observed that the original order was issued to only three parties, including the main importers who had appealed against it and had their penalties set aside. The impugned order, issued four years later, had no legal sanctity as it merged with the earlier appellate order. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order lacked legal sanctity and could not be enforced due to the failure to consider the earlier first appellate order. Consequently, all the appeals were allowed.