2014 (10) TMI 118 - HC - Customs

Violation of EXIM policy - Import of BMW 5 series luxury cars in contravention of Transfer of Residence facility of baggage rules - misdeclaration of the year of manufacture and model number and tampered with the chassis number - imposition of fine and penalty - Held that - there cannot be two orders by the Tribunal with two different results. In any event before passing the impugned order there is no mention that the earlier order recorded on 3.6.2009 allowing the appeal in part has been withdrawn. The error apparently has not been noticed by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal for the second time. The error as above requires to be corrected. - matter remanded back to verify and record as to whether the earlier order is supported by reasons and if so has it been withdrawn for any reason - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against imposition of fine and penalty for violating EXIM policy by importing luxury cars; Contradictory orders passed by the Tribunal on penalty reduction; Legality of rehearing and passing fresh order after two years by the Tribunal; Validity of Tribunal's finding on appellant being a habitual offender without prior notice.

Analysis:
1. Imposition of Fine and Penalty: The case involves an appeal by an importer accused of violating the EXIM policy by importing luxury cars in contravention of baggage rules. The appellant allegedly misdeclared details to avoid paying customs duty, leading to the imposition of a fine and penalty of Rupees Eight lakhs by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal modified this penalty in an order dated 10.5.2011, reducing it from eight lakhs to six lakhs.

2. Contradictory Tribunal Orders: The appellant raised a crucial issue regarding contradictory orders passed by the Tribunal. The appellant pointed out that a previous order on the same matter had reduced the penalty to two lakhs, whereas the impugned order reduced it to six lakhs. This discrepancy raised concerns about the legality and consistency of the Tribunal's decisions, as two different results were reached in separate orders without withdrawing the earlier one.

3. Legality of Tribunal's Actions: The appellant challenged the legality of the Tribunal's actions, questioning the rehearing and passing of a fresh order almost two years after the initial decision. The Tribunal's decision-making process was scrutinized, especially regarding the legality and sanctity of its proceedings after becoming Functus Officio. The appellant also contested the Tribunal's finding of the appellant being a habitual offender without prior notice or charges laid against them.

4. Court's Decision: The Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the contradictory Tribunal orders and the lack of withdrawal of the earlier decision. In light of this, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for verification and clarification on the status of the earlier order. The Court emphasized the need for consistency and correctness in legal proceedings, directing the Tribunal to reevaluate the case based on the corrected understanding of the previous order.

5. Conclusion: The Court's decision favored the appellant, highlighting the importance of maintaining procedural integrity and ensuring that legal orders are consistent and well-founded. By remanding the matter back to the Tribunal, the Court aimed to rectify the error in the Tribunal's decision-making process and uphold the principles of fairness and legal correctness in the adjudication of the case.