2019 (8) TMI 1145 - AT - Customs

Demand of Customs Duty and cesses - Section 28(8) of the Customs Act, 1962 - courier agencies - HELD THAT - The SCN were issued to various courier agencies on the same allegation and this Tribunal in the case of M/S. RPS GLOBAL COURIER SERVICES AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX TRIVANDRUM 2014 (10) TMI 330 - CESTAT BANGALORE has remanded the case back to the original authority for passing the fresh order. Since the issue involved in the present case is also same, this case also needs to be remanded back to the original authority for de novo adjudication. The present case to the original authority for de novo adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of customs duty and Cesses on imported goods
2. Liability to pay interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962
3. Imposition of penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962
4. Allegations of importing goods under false pretenses
5. Remand of the case for de novo adjudication

Confirmation of Customs Duty and Cesses:
The appeal challenged an order confirming customs duty and Cesses on imported goods under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner held the appellant liable for appropriate interest under Section 28AA of the Act and imposed penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA. The appellant imported goods under the guise of bonafide gifts to avoid duty, causing a loss to the exchequer. The investigation revealed that almost all Bills of Entry were filed under duty-free provisions. The appellant imported goods worth &8377; 72,73,38,363/- and cleared them against Courier Bills of Entry meant for duty-free imports. Statements were recorded, a show-cause notice issued, and the impugned order passed confirming the demand.

Liability to Pay Interest and Imposition of Penalties:
The appellant was found liable to pay interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, in addition to penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA. The penalties imposed amounted to &8377; 10 crores. The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable and cited precedents where similar cases were remanded. The Tribunal noted previous cases where matters were remanded back to the original authority for fresh orders due to identical allegations against courier agencies.

Allegations of Importing Goods Under False Pretenses:
The appellant, holding a Courier Registration, imported goods under the guise of bonafide gifts to illegitimately avail duty-free provisions, causing a loss to the exchequer. The investigation identified imports made by courier agencies through Trivandrum International Airport under false declarations. The Tribunal found the issue similar to previous cases involving courier agencies and decided to remand the present case for de novo adjudication.

Remand of the Case for De Novo Adjudication:
After considering submissions from both parties and perusing the records, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the original authority for de novo adjudication. Citing precedents where similar cases were remanded, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand. The appellant would be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case during the fresh adjudication process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of confirmation of customs duty, liability for interest and penalties, allegations of false imports, and the decision to remand the case for de novo adjudication based on precedents involving similar cases.