2019 (9) TMI 1030 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - non-Prosecution of the case - HELD THAT - It becomes clear that more than a dozen adjournments have been sought by the appellant in the present case. The said conduct of the appellant is sufficient for us to form an opinion that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the impugned matter. Perusal of Order of adjudicating authority below reveals that the Department observed mis-declaration as far as the number of cartons/packages imported and the weight thereof is concerned, as were imported by the appellant vide Bill of Entry No. 8472911 dated 03.03.2015. Department also observed the under-valuation of the consignments - seeing from the merits as well we do not find any justification in the impugned Appeal. Te Appeal in hand is dismissed not only for want of the compliance and non-prosecution on part of the appellant but also for his absence as on date and for no merits in this Appeal to his favour.

Summary

Issues: Non-prosecution by the appellant, Mis-declaration of imported goods, Under-valuation of consignments, Lack of compliance with directives, Absence of appellant, Lack of merits in the appeal

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi, delivered by Mrs. Rachna Gupta, addresses multiple issues. Firstly, it notes the persistent non-prosecution by the appellant, who has been seeking adjournments since September 2018. Despite being directed to provide legible copies of documents, particularly the Order-in-Original, the appellant failed to comply, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The tribunal highlights the appellant's repeated adjournment requests, suggesting a deliberate avoidance of the case.

Moving on to the substantive issue, the Order of the adjudicating authority revealed mis-declaration of the number of cartons/packages imported and the weight thereof, along with under-valuation of consignments in a specific Bill of Entry. The acknowledgment by the appellant's partner, Shri Umesh Mittal, further confirmed a differential duty of ?3,57,973, which was duly deposited. Considering these findings, the tribunal found no justification for the appeal on its merits.

Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's non-compliance, lack of prosecution, absence during proceedings, and the absence of merits favoring the appellant. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adherence to directives, active participation in proceedings, and the merit-based assessment of appeals to ensure fair and just outcomes in legal matters.

---