2013 (10) TMI 61 - HC - Customs

Deposit of Duty - Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellants to deposit 15% of the duty Held that - Evidentiary value of e-mail communication in the case of SGS Corporation itself was yet to be established - The Tribunal had declined to consider the retraction on the ground that the retraction had not been made before the authority who had recorded their statement - the retraction letter was in fact addressed to the officer who had recorded the statement - The prima facie view of the Tribunal on the basis of which pre-deposit was ordered cannot be sustained Order was Quashed and set aside - and the Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting any pre-deposit.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellants to deposit 15% of the duty confirmed by the order in original.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay addressed the issue of whether the Tribunal was correct in ordering the appellants to deposit 15% of the duty confirmed by the original order. The Tribunal had relied on evidence including e-mail communications between the foreign supplier and SGS Corporation, as well as a statement from the Director/partner of the appellants admitting undervaluation of goods. However, the Court noted that the adjudication in the case of SGS Corporation based on the same e-mail communication was still ongoing, casting doubt on its evidentiary value. Additionally, the appellants argued that the Director/partner had retracted the statement admitting undervaluation, and the retraction was communicated to the officer who had recorded the original statement. The Court found that the Tribunal had not considered this retraction properly, leading to a conclusion that the prima facie view of the Tribunal for ordering the pre-deposit was not sustainable.

The Court ultimately quashed and set aside the Tribunal's order, directing the Tribunal to hear the appeal on its merits without requiring any pre-deposit. Both appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs. The judgment highlights the importance of considering all evidence and retractions properly before making decisions that could impact the parties involved.