2018 (12) TMI 878 - AT - Customs

Provisional assessment - assessments were kept provisional on the ground that the consignment were being imported in mix of different variety of crude oil, and therefore, the appellants were not in a position to submit full information about the price and other costs as such freight and insurance at the time of import - Held that - The ld. Adjudicating Authority has not considered the specific direction of this Tribunal and acted above the findings of the Tribunal, which he was not competent to do. This itself is in defiance of the order passed by the Tribunal and is a glaring example of non-application of mind and defiance of order from the higher judicial forum. As the case is very old pertaining to the year 1994 to 1996, no purpose would be served by remanding this case once again to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reconsideration of duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed.
2. Failure to follow directions given by the Hon'ble CESTAT in re-adjudicating the case.
3. Non-examination of documents by the Adjudicating Authority as per the specific remand order.
4. Defiance of the order passed by the Tribunal and non-application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case involving an importer, a public sector oil company, who imported crude oil petroleum for distribution among various oil companies as per the Government of India's policy. The assessments were provisional due to the mix of crude oil varieties in the consignments, with the importer executing a bond to cover any liability upon finalization of the assessment. The Hon'ble CESTAT, in a previous appeal, remanded the case for reconsideration of duty demand, setting aside the interest and penalty imposed. The Adjudicating Authority, in the impugned order, upheld the duty demand based on the earlier Commissioner's findings and orders.

The main issue raised was the failure of the Adjudicating Authority to follow the directions of the Hon'ble CESTAT in re-adjudicating the case. The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority did not appreciate the evidence presented and merely reproduced the earlier order, disregarding the CESTAT's directions. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to reproduce the previous order verbatim was deemed a violation of the specific remand order, showing a lack of consideration for the Tribunal's directions.

Upon critical review, the Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority's actions to be in defiance of the Tribunal's order, highlighting non-application of mind and a disregard for the higher judicial forum's directives. Given the case's age and the Adjudicating Authority's failure to comply with the remand order, the Tribunal decided not to remand the case for fresh consideration. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits for the appellant. The judgment underscores the importance of Adjudicating Authorities adhering to the directions of higher judicial forums and applying due diligence in re-adjudicating cases.