2019 (3) TMI 53 - AT - Customs

Dutiability - alleged concealment in imports of the past - Absolute confiscation - lack of application of mind and lack of objectivity - Held that - The limitations in the procedure prescribed for examination of goods, and the failure on the part of the appellant to furnish details of post importation transaction, was held by the adjudicating authority to be sufficient to establish the case, notwithstanding reference to the actions of the proper officers in assessing and releasing of goods. In the absence of acceptable reason for release, despite mis-declaration, for home consumption their contention that attestation could well establish the consequence claimed by the appellants, the criticality of cross examination is evident. Even if it were not so, it was incumbent upon the adjudicating authority to dispose off the request for cross-examination. Evaluation of the resultant evidence may well have provided stronger grounds than the impugned order contains. The course of justice will be best served by setting aside the impugned order, save that portion pertaining to absolute confiscation of the goods, and remanding the matter back to the original authority for a fresh decision after dealing with the request of the appellants for cross-examination of the assessing officers of the impugned consignments and other evidence presented by the appellants, if any - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of consignment under section 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Duty liability on past imports and consequential penalties.
3. Ownership denial of seized containers and lack of evidence.
4. Validity of statements and need for cross-examination.
5. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the impugned order.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with the confiscation of consignments under sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants contested the confiscation, alleging lack of application of mind and objectivity in the impugned order. The customs authorities had confiscated the consignment and imposed duty based on intent to clear for home consumption. The appellants denied ownership of the containers seized and argued that the adjudicating authority's findings were based on presumptions without concrete evidence of past concealment in imports.

2. The issue of duty liability on past imports and consequential penalties was raised by the appellants. They contested the duty liability on imports filed between 2001 and 2004, along with penalties imposed. The appellants sought cross-examination of officers involved in assessing and clearing past consignments to establish the contents and disprove the allegations of duty evasion. The judgment highlights the need for concrete evidence and proper validation of statements in such proceedings.

3. Ownership denial of the seized containers and lack of evidence formed a crucial part of the dispute. The appellants consistently disowned the confiscated goods, claiming they were shipped erroneously by the overseas supplier. They argued that the adjudicating authority's reliance on retracted statements and presumptions without substantial proof was unjust. The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing ownership and evidence in cases of confiscation and duty liability.

4. Validity of statements and the need for cross-examination were extensively discussed in the judgment. The appellants challenged the reliance on statements that were retracted at a later stage and emphasized the requirement for cross-examining assessing officers to validate past imports. The judgment underscores the significance of corroborative evidence and proper validation of statements to ensure a fair adjudication process.

5. The judgment also addressed the issue of compliance with principles of natural justice in the impugned order. The appellants sought cross-examination of officers, which was denied by the adjudicating authority. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing opportunities for cross-examination and ensuring a fair hearing in line with principles of natural justice. The decision ultimately set aside the impugned order, except for the portion related to absolute confiscation, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for proper examination of evidence and compliance with procedural fairness.