2018 (8) TMI 1528 - AT - Customs

Import of Old and Used Multifunction Print & Copying Machines with standard accessories - Hazardous goods or not? - Country of origin - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - The Department, not having appealed against the first order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 05.04.2017, the adjudicating authority in de novo adjudication, was legally bound to follow only the remand directions and not go beyond that. As a corollary, the Revenue also cannot now raise any appeal to this forum on issues which had been decided in the first order of Commissioner (Appeals), but not appealed against. Such non-appeal will have the effect of that earlier order having been accepted by Department. The lower appellate authority has arrived at a well analysed and reasoned decision as to the correctness of the Country of Origin declared by the importers - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act for contravention of import provisions and Hazardous Wastes Rules.
2. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order for release of goods for home consumption.
3. Validity of de novo adjudication order confiscating goods and ordering re-export.
4. Dispute over Country of Origin certificate.
5. Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The original authority confiscated the imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act for contravention of import provisions and Hazardous Wastes Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially ordered release for home consumption, subject to verification of the Country of Origin certificate. However, in the de novo adjudication, the Additional Commissioner declared the goods as "other wastes" under the Hazardous Wastes Rules, leading to confiscation and re-export at the importer's cost. The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently set aside the de novo order, relying on the genuineness of the Country of Origin certificate and Tribunal precedents.

Issue 2:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, arguing that the de novo adjudication exceeded the remand directions and the confiscation was based on Customs Act contravention, not Hazardous Wastes Rules violation. The respondent contended that the original order was not appealed against, making it binding, and cited legal precedents to support this position.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal acknowledged the non-appeal of the original Commissioner (Appeals) order by the Revenue, emphasizing the legal obligation to follow remand directions. The judgment referenced legal precedents to highlight the implications of non-appeal and the acceptance of earlier decisions by the Department. The Tribunal found the lower appellate authority's decision on the Country of Origin to be well-analyzed.

Issue 4:
The dispute over the Country of Origin certificate was a crucial aspect of the case, with the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal emphasizing the genuineness of the certificate from the Sharjah Chamber of Commerce and Industry, UAE. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the certificate's authenticity, especially considering the lack of dispute in the chartered engineer's report.

Issue 5:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, citing no infirmity in the decision. The judgment highlighted that the issue of BIS registration, raised in the grounds of appeal, was not part of the original proceedings and could not be introduced at that stage.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing adherence to remand directions, the genuineness of the Country of Origin certificate, and the inadmissibility of new issues not raised in the original proceedings.

← Previous Next →