9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 158 - AT - CustomsImporter - SCN issued to the appellants along with M/s. Maruti Wood Industries, Arunesh Saw Mills, and the overseas suppliers contending that M/s. Maruthi Wood Industries are not the true importers who caused the import of the logs but their name were used by the appellant fraudulently - the case of department is mainly based on the statement given by proprietor Shri B. Dinesh of M/s. Maruti Wood Industries. In the statement given on 26.11.2013, the said person denied issuing no objection letter. Statements from staff of the appellants (Custom Broker), was also recorded. Held that - At the time of hearing, the Id. counsel has submitted that appeals were filed by the new importer on whom redemption fine was imposed. That these appeals have been remanded to the adjudicating authority vide Final Order No.40611 to 40615/2017 dt.31.03.2017. It is seen that the authorities below have failed to take note of the fact that the statement given by proprietor Sh. B. Dinesh was retracted. The appeals filed by new importers were remanded, inter alia, on such grounds. Therefore, I am of the view that these appeals also require to be reconsidered by the original authority. In such denovo proceedings, the appellants shall be given opportunity to adduce evidence and for personal hearing. The adjudicating authority shall, after due process of law, pass a reasoned speaking order - Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act. 2. Imposition of penalties under different sections of Customs Act. 3. Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter. Analysis: Issue 1: Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act The case involved M/s. Hari & Co., a customs broker, and the import of timber logs by M/s. Maruthi Wood Industries. The goods were warehoused at a private bonded warehouse. However, due to payment issues, the goods were sold to M/s. Arunesh Saw Mills. The customs authorities seized the goods, suspecting unauthorized import. A show cause notice was issued proposing the confiscation of goods and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act. Issue 2: Imposition of penalties under different sections of Customs Act The original authority ordered the confiscation of goods but provided an option for redemption on payment of a fine. Additionally, a penalty was imposed on M/s. Hari & Co. The appellants challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals), arguing that the penalty was unjustified as the original importer had issued a no objection letter. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for reevaluation of the penalties imposed. Issue 3: Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter The appellants contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power to remand the matter. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case for a relook at the penalties under different sections of the Customs Act. The Assistant Commissioner reiterated the findings, stating that the documents were forged and not issued by the original importer, leading to the imposition of penalties. In the final judgment, the appellate authority noted that the case primarily relied on the statement of the proprietor of M/s. Maruthi Wood Industries, who initially denied issuing the no objection letter but later retracted the statement. The authority observed that the appeals filed by the new importers were remanded due to such grounds. Consequently, the appeals of M/s. Hari & Co. were allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, ensuring an opportunity for evidence submission and personal hearing to the appellants. The adjudicating authority was directed to pass a reasoned order after due process of law.
|
