2017 (11) TMI 950 - AT - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - whether the Department had acted fairly and properly in considering the request for re-export of goods made by the appellants? - Held that - even if it was not expressly said so by Hon ble High Court to grant personal hearing, the fact that the order was to be passed in accordance with law means that principles of natural justice were required to be followed by the adjudicating authority while deciding the request of re-export of goods. Even if the appellants did not ask the adjudicating authority to grant personal hearing for request for re-export, it was incumbent on the adjudicating authority to provide them an opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the matter - matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misclassification and misdeclaration of imported goods.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty.
3. Request for re-export of goods and denial of the same.
4. Lack of personal hearing before deciding on the re-export request.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported a consignment of "Artificial Fur" but the goods were found to be "100% Polyester Knitted Cut Pile Fabric" upon examination. The goods were classified incorrectly, leading to misdeclaration and misclassification under the wrong category, attracting a higher customs duty.

2. Subsequently, the goods were confiscated, valued at ?46,81,749, and a fine of ?15,00,000 was imposed along with a personal penalty of ?5,00,000. The appellants were allowed to redeem the goods upon payment of the fine and penalty. The appellants then sought permission to re-export the goods, which was initially denied by the Revenue department.

3. The appellants approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking permission to re-export the goods, and the court directed the department to re-decide the matter within a month. The adjudicating authority then allowed the re-export on payment of necessary dues and granted permission to claim drawback on the import duty paid.

4. The main issue raised was the lack of a personal hearing before deciding on the re-export request. The appellants argued that they were not granted a personal hearing before the re-export order was passed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the re-export order, stating that the High Court did not make a personal hearing a condition precedent. However, the Tribunal found that principles of natural justice required a fair opportunity for a personal hearing before deciding on the re-export request.

5. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case before deciding on the re-export request. The decision was made to ensure that the principles of natural justice were followed in the adjudication process. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, allowing for a fresh decision on the re-export request with proper procedural fairness.