2022 (8) TMI 555 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - opportunity for hearing was not availed by appellant - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The appellant was given opportunity for hearing was extended by Commissioner to the appellant to appear before him. But the same could not be availed by him for the reasons as stated by Counsel that address has changed and CHA had never informed him about the fixation of date of hearing. Without going further into merits of the case, the ends of justice will be met if order in respect of the present appellant is set aside and matter remanded back to the Commissioner for decision on the notice issued to this appellant after allowing him opportunities of hearing him before passing the order - appeal allowed in part by way of remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of declared value and redetermination under CVR, 2007.
2. Confiscation of goods and option for redemption.
3. Confirmation of differential duty and penalty imposition.
4. Penalty imposition on individuals and CHA.
5. Opportunity for personal hearing and remand of the matter.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Order-in-Original regarding the rejection of the declared value of goods covered under a specific Bill of Entry and its redetermination under CVR, 2007. The impugned Order redetermined the value at a significantly higher amount under Rule 4 and 5 of CVR, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the lack of proper hearing opportunities and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for fresh consideration after providing adequate hearing to the appellant.

2. The Order-in-Original also involved the confiscation of the goods with an assessable value under the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned Order allowed the importer an option to redeem the goods upon payment of a specified redemption fine. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case but emphasized the importance of providing fair hearing opportunities to the appellant before passing any confiscation orders, leading to the decision to remand the matter for proper adjudication.

3. Furthermore, the Order confirmed a differential duty amount and imposed penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties were levied on the proprietor of the importing entity and the Clearing House Agent (CHA) for non-compliance and misleading declarations. The Tribunal did not overturn these decisions but focused on the procedural aspect of ensuring proper hearing and due process, leading to the remand of the matter for fresh adjudication.

4. The penalties imposed on the individuals and the CHA were significant and were based on specific sections of the Customs Act, 1962 related to non-compliance, intentional misleading, and failure to provide accurate declarations. The Tribunal acknowledged the penalties but stressed the importance of allowing the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case before the Original Authority, highlighting the procedural fairness aspect in the adjudication process.

5. The issue of the appellant's missed opportunities for personal hearing was crucial in the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter. The Tribunal noted the appellant's reasons for not appearing for the designated hearings and emphasized the necessity of providing adequate hearing opportunities to ensure the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-adjudicate the matter within a specified timeframe to expedite the resolution while ensuring fairness and due process in the proceedings.

← Previous Next →