2016 (3) TMI 222 - AT - Customs

Validity of Commissioner (Appeals) order - Record does not show whether any personal hearing was granted by that authority or any appeal was heard by that authority and a sheet showing personal hearing available on record and an order sheet are also not under signature of learned Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that the maintenance of public record shows that an empty formality was followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal of appeal. The entire action of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to law and there is no disposal of appeal as yet on his record. If this is the manner an appellate authority acts, and his undated order comes for judicial review, it is difficult to appreciate the very existence of the impugned order itself as to whether that has seen the light of the day. Therefore, The order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) has no existence in law and accordingly, the remarks made by appellate Commissioner shall also have no legs to stand. As the adjudicating authority summarily disposed of the proceeding without a speaking order, he is directed to issue appropriate notice to the importer clearly bringing out allegations if any for the defence of the later and granting reasonable opportunity of hearing and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order considering defence plea as well as evidence if any led by the importer. - Matter remanded back

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order enhancing the declared value of imported goods.
2. Delay in clearance of goods and violation of circulars.
3. Enhancement of value without a speaking order and without following Customs Valuation Rules.
4. Allegations of undervaluation by the importer and best judgment assessment by customs authority.
5. Appellate authority's power to direct acceptance of declared value and derogatory remarks made.
6. Allegations of unreasonable delay by customs authority and lack of evidence of malafide actions.
7. Lack of proper record-keeping and disposal of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).
8. Compliance with legal requirements for passing speaking orders and maintaining public records.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was made against the order enhancing the declared value of imported goods, resulting in a differential duty. The appellate authority set aside this enhancement, directing the acceptance of the declared value and refund of the differential duty paid by the importer, emphasizing the need for compliance with Customs Valuation Rules.

2. The delay in clearance of goods and violation of circulars were noted by the appellate authority, leading to the direction for refund and emphasizing the importance of following proper procedures in customs clearance.

3. The enhancement of value without a speaking order and non-compliance with Customs Valuation Rules rendered the revaluation illegal. The importer's protest against the rejection of declared value was considered valid, highlighting the necessity for a reasoned and speaking order.

4. Allegations of undervaluation by the importer and the best judgment assessment by customs authority were disputed. The customs authority defended its actions, citing proper adherence to the law and the lack of evidence of deliberate undervaluation.

5. The appellate authority's power to direct the acceptance of declared value was questioned, emphasizing the need for a remand when adjudication is not in accordance with the law. The derogatory remarks made by the appellate authority were criticized for overlooking the importer's conduct.

6. Arguments regarding unreasonable delay by customs authority and lack of evidence of malafide actions were presented, challenging the derogatory remarks in the appellate order and emphasizing the vigilance and proper conduct of customs authorities.

7. Lack of proper record-keeping and disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) raised concerns about the legality and existence of the impugned order, highlighting the necessity for adherence to legal procedures and maintenance of public records.

8. The judgment emphasized the need for compliance with legal requirements for passing speaking orders and maintaining public records, urging the Central Board of Excise & Customs to issue appropriate guidelines for quasi-judicial authorities in the administrative justice system.