1986 (6) TMI 193 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Review by Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur.
2. Allegations of improper valuation and seizure of goods.
3. Confiscation and redemption of seized goods.
4. Issuance of Corrigendum modifying Adjudication Order.
5. Review Show Cause Notice under section 130(2) of Customs Act.
6. Challenge to the authority of the Corrigendum.
7. Decision on remitting the case for Adjudication de novo.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Review by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur, which held the initial Order passed by the Assistant Collector improper. The Collector ordered the case to be adjudicated de novo due to alleged discrepancies in the valuation and seizure of goods.

2. The case stemmed from a Customs Preventive party checking the accounts and stocks of imported goods, including Wrist Watches, Watch Movements, Cassettes, and other items of foreign origin. The appellant contested the valuation and origin of the seized goods in response to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Assistant Collector.

3. The Adjudication Authority confiscated the seized Wrist Watches and allowed redemption of other goods like Cassettes, Pencil Cells, and Radio Valves upon payment of a redemption fine. A personal penalty was also imposed on the appellant.

4. A Corrigendum was issued by the Adjudicating Authority modifying the Adjudication Order to allow redemption of the confiscated Watch Movements. Subsequently, a Review Show Cause Notice was issued by the Collector under section 130(2) of the Customs Act to review the Adjudication Order.

5. The appellant contended that the Corrigendum was issued without authority and raised objections based on the provisions of the Customs Act regarding the review of orders after a certain period. The Reviewing Authority passed an order after hearing both parties.

6. The appellant argued that the Corrigendum was issued due to a clerical error, but the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the Assistant Collector had no authority to modify the Order or issue the Corrigendum without proper grounds as per the Customs Act.

7. Considering the age of the case and the trivial value of the Watch Movements, the Tribunal decided not to remit the case for Adjudication de novo. The impugned Order-in-Review and the Corrigendum were set aside, and the original Adjudication Order was restored, taking into account the undue hardship and the Department's lack of objection to this course of action.