2013 (9) TMI 321 - AT - Customs

Re-examination of the bills of entry and goods - whether contemporaneous evidence should be basis of adjudication against the appellant Held that - Only after proper examination of the features along with the contents of contemporaneous evidence the finding could be acceptable to law - Terms of contracts, quantum of import, value prevailing at the relevant point of time, feature of goods use of the goods should also receive his consideration - assessee shall get fair opportunity of defence without seeking any adjournment - above exercise of determination of the issue shall be completed as expeditiously as possible appeal decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file memo of appearance by the appellant's counsel.
2. Controversy regarding the similarity of goods imported under different bills of entry.
3. Need for re-examination of the bills of entry and goods with contemporaneous evidence by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Timely completion of the determination process for the appellant.
5. Lack of a stay order and payment of duty by the appellant.
6. Conclusion and disposal of the appeal with specific directions.

Issue 1: Failure to file memo of appearance
The judgment highlighted that the appellant's counsel failed to file a memo of appearance on the day of the hearing, leading to the possibility of an ex-parte order. The judge emphasized the importance of proper representation in legal proceedings to ensure fair adjudication.

Issue 2: Controversy over similarity of goods
The counsel argued that the goods imported under different bills of entry were not similar and served different purposes. The judgment stressed the importance of factual evidence and contemporaneous bills of entry in determining the similarity of goods for valuation purposes. The lack of evidence led to the decision to remand the matter for re-examination.

Issue 3: Re-examination by Commissioner (Appeals)
The judgment directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the bills of entry and goods with contemporaneous evidence. Factors such as terms of contracts, import quantity, prevailing value, and usage of goods were highlighted for consideration. The Commissioner was instructed to provide a fair opportunity for the appellant's defense without unnecessary adjournments.

Issue 4: Timely determination process
Emphasizing the appellant's four-year wait and payment of differential duty, the judgment urged for the expeditious completion of the issue determination process. The need for a prompt resolution was underscored to address the appellant's situation effectively.

Issue 5: Lack of stay order and duty payment
The judgment noted that the duty was paid by the appellant without a stay order. However, the violation of natural justice was acknowledged, leading to the decision to dispose of the appeal with specific directions for future proceedings.

Issue 6: Conclusion and disposal of the appeal
In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the specified directions for re-examination by the Commissioner (Appeals) and ensuring a fair process for the appellant. The judgment emphasized the need for a just and timely resolution of the issues raised in the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the key issues addressed by the court and the specific directions given for further proceedings.