2017 (5) TMI 224 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) - Revenue is on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in remanding the matter to Adjudicating Authority - appellant imported consignments declaring the contents as waste paper office waste in the impugned Bills of Entry - mutilation of rags - Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision considering the facts and additional evidence produced before him. In this view the matter, the impugned order in appeal is upheld, directing the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order as directed - appeal dismissed with directions by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues:
- Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter to Adjudicating Authority
- Mis-declaration of imported goods as waste paper
- Appellant's request for mutilation not considered
- Additional evidence in form of 'End use Certificate'
- Applicability of judgments in similar cases

Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around the issue of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority and the subsequent appeal by Revenue on the grounds of jurisdictional error. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the imported consignments, initially declared as 'waste paper,' actually contained items like calendars, diaries, and planners upon examination by Customs officers. The imported goods were then classified differently, leading to the imposition of redemption fine and penalty for mis-declaration. It was noted that no Order-in-Original had been issued, and the appeals were filed against the assessment order based on the Bills of Entry. The appellant admitted to the mis-declaration and agreed to pay the duty, fine, and penalty. However, the appellant's request for mutilation was not considered, and the seized goods were released without a speaking order being passed. Subsequently, the appellant submitted 'End use Certificates' as additional evidence to support their claim regarding the end use of the imported goods, their assessment under a different tariff heading, and the imposition of fines and penalties.

Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to various judgments, including the case of Collector of Customs vs. Swastik Woolen Industries, to highlight the importance of considering an importer's offer for mutilation before confiscation and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the Bills of Entry in light of the 'End use Certificates' and provide the appellant with a personal hearing. The judgment upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter for a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority based on the facts and additional evidence presented. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with directions for remand to the adjudicating authority for further assessment and decision-making in accordance with the rules and principles outlined in the judgment.