2019 (8) TMI 1144 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of description of goods - case of the appellant is that the appellant did not raise the ground of corrigendum before the Commissioner(Appeals) as well as before this Tribunal - HELD THAT - The issue raised by the appellant is purely legal in nature and can be raised first time before this appellate Tribunal at the time of argument and the Tribunal has the power to examine the legal issue even if not raised in the grounds of appeal. Further, the Jt. Commissioner while passing the Order-in- Original on 07/03/2008 imposed redemption fine of ₹ 10,000/-, ₹ 8000/- and ₹ 3000/- in respect of different Bills of Entry in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly, he imposed penalty of ₹ 1 lakh, ₹ 30000/- and ₹ 80000/- in respect of different Bills of Entry under Sectgion 112(a)(ii) of the Act. Thereafter on 28/03/2008, he has passed a corrigendum changing the amount of redemption fine and penalty without giving any notice to the parties. The original order passed by the Jt. Commissioner and the corrigendum passed on 28/03/2008 are not sustainable in law and therefore we set aside the same and remand the case back to the original authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. and after following the principles of natural justice - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against impugned order upholding Order-in-Original regarding valuation of imported goods and imposition of fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals against a common impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original by the Jt. Commissioner regarding the valuation of imported video games. The goods were seized due to alleged undervaluation, and after examination by a Chartered Engineer, their value was determined. The lower authority finalized the provisional assessment, imposed fines, penalties, and appropriated amounts from bank guarantees. The appeals were remanded due to procedural irregularities, but on remand, the goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) and penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeals.

The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as the Jt. Commissioner altered the fine and penalty amounts through a corrigendum after the original order was passed. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended that the original authority cannot modify the penalty once imposed, becoming functus officio. The appellant further argued that the corrigendum issued without notice rendered the subsequent order unsustainable under law.

The respondent defended the impugned order, stating that the appellant did not raise the corrigendum issue before the Commissioner(Appeals) or the Tribunal. The respondent urged the Tribunal to decide based on the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the issue raised by the appellant was legal and could be addressed for the first time during the appeal. It found that the Jt. Commissioner's corrigendum altering fine and penalty amounts without notice violated natural justice principles and was not appropriate under law. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that a corrigendum cannot substantially alter the original order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh decision after affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard and ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.