2016 (11) TMI 907 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential customs duty, interest thereof and penalties imposed - mis-declaration of value of the goods imported - Held that - there is a merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel, that despite giving a detailed written submissions highlighting various aspects on which the appellants has challenged the order-in-original, the first appellate authority has not recorded any findings on the said submissions made nor it is recorded that why she is not accepting the said submissions made by the appellants. In our considered view the impugned order not addressing the submission made by the appellants is not a speaking order and such order needs to be set aside - appeal disposed off - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of differential customs duty, interest, and penalties due to mis-declaration of imported goods' value.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals challenging an order-in-appeal regarding the demand of differential customs duty, interest, and penalties due to mis-declaration of the value of imported goods by the main appellant. The first appellate authority rejected the appeals without providing reasoning for not accepting the detailed submissions made by the appellants during the hearing. The appellants highlighted contemporaneous imports and relevant case laws, but the first appellate authority did not address these submissions in its order.

During the proceedings, the learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the first appellate authority relied on a statement from an individual and invoices recovered from a computer. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument that the impugned order was not a speaking order as it did not address the submissions made by the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that the lack of reasoning in the order rendered it unreasoned and, therefore, set it aside.

The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. It directed the first appellate authority to dispose of the appeals within three months from the receipt of the order. Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that all issues are kept open for the first appellate authority to reach a conclusion, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision-making process.

In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of by way of remand, highlighting the importance of providing a speaking order that addresses the submissions made by the parties involved. The judgment underscores the significance of following due process and principles of natural justice in administrative and legal proceedings.