2017 (11) TMI 1437 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - Benefit of N/N. 26/2000-Cus dated 01.03.2000 - denial on the ground that the process undertaken by Sri Lankan supplier does not confer the status of originating products - Held that - It is indeed correct that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the appellant. The appellant was served with a show cause notice only on 21.10.2015 whereas within a week i.e. on 29.10.2015, the adjudicating authority has passed the order exparte - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Passing of order without granting an opportunity of hearing.
2. Classification of imported goods under CTH 4811 9099.
3. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus.
4. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contended that the order was passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing, thus preventing them from defending their case. The counsel requested a remand to the adjudicating authority to allow submission of evidence and a personal hearing. The Assistant Commissioner reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument regarding the lack of a hearing before the order was passed. The appellant received the show cause notice on 21.10.2015, and within a week, the order was issued ex parte on 29.10.2015. Recognizing this procedural flaw, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for the appellant to have a fair opportunity to contest the case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand.

3. The impugned order had classified the imported goods under CTH 4811 9099, asserting that the printing on the goods was incidental to their primary use. Additionally, the order denied the exemption claimed under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus, stating that the process carried out by the Sri Lankan supplier did not meet the criteria to confer the status of originating products. The order also proposed confiscation and imposed a redemption fine of ?10,00,000/- along with a penalty of ?70,99,546/-.

4. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the classification and denial of exemption in the impugned order, as the primary focus was on the procedural irregularity of not granting a hearing. By remanding the matter, the Tribunal left all issues open for the appellant to contest and defend their case properly before the adjudicating authority. The decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair procedure in adjudication.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI highlights the procedural irregularity in passing the order without a hearing and the subsequent remand to ensure the appellant's right to defend their case adequately.