2017 (6) TMI 359 - AT - Customs

Natural justice - some of the vital documents relied upon by the department have not been provided to the appellants herein - confiscation of goods - Held that - there is definitely merit in the Id. Advocate s contentions that they have not been given copies of important documents relied upon and that retraction letters have not been taken into cognizance and in the process the principles of natural justice have been violated - all the appeals are remitted back to the original authority for denovo consideration, where all documents relied upon in the SCN shall be provided to them - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Imposition of penalties on customs broker and importer.
3. Amendment of Bill of Entry.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Confiscation of Imported Goods under Customs Act, 1962:
The case involved multiple appeals concerning the confiscation of imported goods under Sections 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants, including M/s. Sri Laxmi Vijaya Saw Mills, were implicated in a situation where the imported goods were allegedly not owned by the declared importer, leading to a series of investigations and legal actions. The original authority had issued a show cause notice proposing absolute confiscation of the seized goods. Subsequently, after due adjudication, the original authority confiscated the goods but offered an option for redemption on payment of a specified amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority's decision, prompting the appellants to appeal further.

Imposition of Penalties on Customs Broker and Importer:
In addition to the confiscation of goods, penalties were imposed on the customs broker and the importer. The penalties were proposed under various sections of the Customs Act, including Sections 112 (a) & (b) and 114 AA. The appellants contested these penalties, arguing that the lower appellate authority had failed to consider crucial aspects, such as the direction of the Hon'ble High Court permitting the amendment of the Bill of Entry. The appellants raised concerns about the proper interpretation of the provisions for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act and highlighted discrepancies in the lower authorities' findings regarding the liability of the goods for confiscation.

Amendment of Bill of Entry:
One of the key contentions raised by the appellants was related to the amendment of the Bill of Entry. They argued that the Hon'ble High Court had directed the amendment after due verification of documents, which should have established the appellants as the rightful importers. The appellants emphasized that the amendment process, as directed by the High Court, should have clarified the ownership of the goods and precluded the need for confiscation or penalties.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
A significant issue that emerged during the proceedings was the alleged violation of principles of natural justice. The appellants contended that vital documents relied upon by the department were not provided to them, affecting their ability to present a comprehensive defense. The failure to provide crucial documents and consider retraction letters led to concerns about procedural fairness. The tribunal acknowledged these concerns and remitted all appeals back to the original authority for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of adhering to natural justice principles and providing necessary documents to the appellants for a fair adjudication process.