9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties due to alleged violations of import regulations. 2. Legitimacy of the importers and their compliance with DEEC scheme conditions. 3. Validity of the orders passed by the Collectors and the subsequent appeals. Summary: Issue 1: Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalties The department contended that the prescribed terms and conditions under the DEEC scheme were not fulfilled, rendering the goods liable to confiscation and the persons concerned liable to penalty. The appellants argued that they had completed their export obligations and imported goods for replenishment, which could be used for further export production or domestic production per para 281 of the 1988-91 Import Policy. They claimed that they had not transferred the right to import to any other person and had not received any premium for such transfer. Issue 2: Legitimacy of the Importers The appellants, M/s. Chaudhary Intt., disclaimed 11 out of 13 consignments but maintained ownership of 2 consignments. They argued that the confiscation of these two consignments was illegal as no show cause notice or opportunity for a personal hearing was provided. M/s. Audio Visual Devices, another appellant, contended that the goods were validly imported against the import-export passbooks issued to M/s. Chaudhary Intt. and that the Collector had no jurisdiction to confiscate them u/s 111(d). They cited the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar to support their claim that a disclaimer by itself cannot be a ground for confiscation. Issue 3: Validity of the Orders and Subsequent Appeals The department appealed against the order of Sh. Gowri Shankar, arguing that the Collector erred in giving the option to redeem the goods to M/s. Audio Visual Devices and that the redemption fine imposed was inadequate. The appellants argued that the Collector's order was illegal and improper, emphasizing that they had not committed any violations. The Tribunal observed that the Collector had not thoroughly analyzed the evidence or taken relevant aspects into account, leading to an order that was vague and showed non-application of mind. Conclusion and Remand: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Collector/Commissioner for de novo consideration, emphasizing the need to consider the matter thoroughly and in accordance with the law. All parties were to be given an opportunity to be heard before a new order was passed.
|
