1987 (8) TMI 323 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, violation of Customs Act, valuation of goods, denial of natural justice, remand for re-adjudication

Mis-declaration of imported goods:
The appellant had imported electronic components claiming them to be for TV Receiver Sets under O.G.L. Appendix 6(1) of AM 1985-86 Policy. However, upon examination, it was found that the goods were actually PCB assemblies for VCR, not CTV as declared. The value of the goods was ascertained at Rs. 1,320/- CIF per piece, leading to a mis-declaration in both description and value. The adjudicating authority held that the clearance required a valid import license under Appendix 3A Sr. No. 610 of AM 85-88 Policy, and in the absence of such license, an offense under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was attracted.

Violation of Customs Act and Valuation of Goods:
The Collector confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with imposing a fine and a personal penalty. The appellant, represented by an advocate, argued that the valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority was high and ignored Customs Valuation Rules. The appellant also claimed entitlement to concessional duty rates under specific notifications. The advocate highlighted discrepancies in valuation compared to similar goods imported by another entity. The respondent objected to remanding the matter, stating that the appellant had waived the right to a show cause notice and introduced new evidence without proper permission.

Denial of Natural Justice and Remand for Re-adjudication:
The Tribunal observed a denial of principles of natural justice as the appellant was not confronted with the material used to enhance the value of the goods. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the Collector for re-adjudication in accordance with the law. It directed the adjudicating authority to provide copies of evidence to the appellant and to re-adjudicate within three months, ensuring a personal hearing for the appellants. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice.

This judgment addresses issues related to mis-declaration of imported goods, violation of the Customs Act, valuation discrepancies, denial of natural justice, and the subsequent remand for re-adjudication. It underscores the importance of procedural fairness, confronting parties with relevant evidence, and ensuring a transparent and lawful adjudication process in customs matters.