2016 (1) TMI 147 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - Appellant had voluntarily chosen to forgo the requirement of issuance of show cause notice and therefore the contention that the order has been issued in violation of principle of natural justice, is not sustainable. The principle of natural justice merely require that nobody shall be condemned unheard. But there is no restriction on the person voluntarily forgoing its right for a show cause notice or personal hearing. There is no dispute that the goods , being old and used, required import licence which the appellant did not possess and he was aware of this fact. It is such a common knowledge for anyone dealing in the import of such goods that old and used goods require import licence. Thus the appellant willfully chose to infringe the import export policy by importing the said goods without import licence. We find that valuation has been done on reasonable basis and having not contested the same at the levels of primary adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority, it is not open for it to contest the same at the level of the Tribunal as has been held by CESTAT in the case of Vikas Spinners vs. C.C., Lucknow 2000 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI . - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of principle of natural justice in passing the Order-in-Appeal.
2. Rejection of declared value without basis, improper quantification of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Imposition of penalty for willful infringement of statutory provisions.
4. Lack of representation from the appellant during the case hearing.
5. Contention regarding the valuation of goods and reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The appellant contended that the Order-in-Appeal was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant voluntarily chose to forgo the requirement of a show cause notice. The Tribunal clarified that the principle of natural justice only requires that nobody shall be condemned unheard, but there is no restriction on voluntarily waiving the right for a show cause notice or personal hearing.

2. The appellant raised concerns about the rejection of the declared value without any basis, improper quantification of the redemption fine, and penalty. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not contest the fact that the imported goods were restricted and did not contest the valuation of the goods at previous levels. Citing a relevant case law, the Tribunal held that once the appellant accepted the loaded value of the goods and paid duty without protest, they were legally estopped from challenging the valuation later.

3. The appellant argued that the penalty should only be imposed for willful infringement of statutory provisions. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and referred to a Supreme Court case to support the imposition of penalty for willful infringement. The Tribunal found that the appellant willfully chose to import restricted goods without the required license, indicating a deliberate infringement of import-export policy.

4. During the case hearing, there was no representation from the appellant, nor was there any request for an adjournment. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the case on its merits in the absence of the appellant's representation.

5. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority to levels deemed reasonable. The Tribunal reviewed the facts and circumstances of the case and found no infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the valuation of goods and the reduction of redemption fine and penalty.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's findings and decisions on each issue involved.