2009 (11) TMI 726 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - mis-declaration of value - violation of Import Export Policy - Held that - In this case the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order whereby the value of imported goods were enhanced and were held to be liable for confiscation being prohibited goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not remanded the matter to the adjudicating Authority. The present impugned order is in favor of the Appellants. Hence the Appellants cannot be held to be aggrieved person - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Setting aside of adjudication order causing prejudice to importer; Commissioner (Appeals) remand power under Section 128A of Customs Act; Fresh evidence leading to review application acceptance.

Setting aside of adjudication order causing prejudice to importer:
The Appellants filed Appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the adjudication order by the Additional Commissioner. The Appellants argued that the setting aside of the adjudication order would prejudice them as the order was passed after a thorough examination of the goods, with an enhancement in value, and confiscation due to violation of Import Export Policy for restricted goods. They contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided on the issues of mis-declaration and policy violation instead of accepting the review application. However, the Revenue argued that fresh evidence emerged during the investigation, leading to the issuance of fresh show cause notices. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not remand the matter to the adjudicating Authority and passed an order in favor of the Appellants, leading to the dismissal of the Appeals as the Appellants could not be considered aggrieved parties in this scenario.

Commissioner (Appeals) remand power under Section 128A of Customs Act:
The Appellants contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to remand the case as per the amended provisions of Section 128A of the Customs Act. They argued that the acceptance of the review application was not sustainable as the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided on the issues directly. On the other hand, the Revenue maintained that the fresh show cause notices were issued based on new evidence, justifying the acceptance of the review application. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not remand the matter to the adjudicating Authority, and as the impugned order was in favor of the Appellants, they could not be considered aggrieved parties, leading to the dismissal of the Appeals.

Fresh evidence leading to review application acceptance:
The Revenue reviewed the initial order due to fresh evidence emerging during the investigation regarding the description and valuation of the imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the review application, leading to the issuance of fresh show cause notices to the Appellants. The Appellants argued against the acceptance of the review application, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have directly addressed the issues of mis-declaration and policy violation. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not remand the matter and passed an order in favor of the Appellants, resulting in the dismissal of the Appeals as the Appellants were not deemed aggrieved parties in this context.