2020 (10) TMI 128 - HC - Customs

Violation of import conditions - benefit of Concessional rate of duty denied - stand of the respondents is that the imported goods should have been put only for own use consumption and should not have been sold - SI.No.292(A) of General Exemption N/N. 50/2017-Customs, dated 30.06.2017 - HELD THAT - Since the petitioner has now obtained End Use certificate from the jurisdictional authority, in the interest of justice, he deserves to be granted one more opportunity. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed - The matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent. The first respondent will issue a fresh hearing notice to the petitioner. On the said date, the petitioner should place all the materials such as End Use certificates before the first respondent for his consideration. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing concessional rate of duty under General Exemption Notification.
2. Allegations of wrongly availing basic customs duty and not fulfilling import conditions.
3. Availability of alternative remedy under Customs Act.
4. Utilization of imported goods for own use.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner imported Wax Coated Waste Corrugated Paper Cuttings under 96 bills of entries and availed Concessional Rate of Duty under a specific notification. The Department alleged that the petitioner wrongly availed the duty and did not fulfill import conditions, leading to a show cause notice dated 15.04.2019. The petitioner denied the allegations and provided explanations, but the impugned order was passed on 13.03.2020, prompting the filing of a Writ Petition challenging the order.

2. The respondents argued that the petitioner should have utilized the imported goods for own use consumption, rather than extracting wax and selling the items to another entity. They contended that the petitioner should have pursued the alternative remedy available under the Customs Act before approaching the Court directly.

3. Despite the strong contention regarding the exhaustion of statutory remedy, the Court allowed the petitioner to bypass the remedy in this case. The Court noted that the show cause notice did not mention the absence of an End Use Certificate issued by the jurisdictional authority, which was a crucial point in the impugned order. This omission was deemed a violation of natural justice, as the petitioner should not be taken by surprise in the final order.

4. The Court emphasized that any ground not included in the show cause notice cannot form the basis of the final order, as it would violate principles of natural justice. The petitioner had since obtained the End Use Certificate for all entries and expressed readiness to provide additional materials if given another opportunity. Considering these factors, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration.

5. Refraining from delving into the merits of the case, the Court granted the petitioner another chance to present all relevant materials, including the End Use certificates, before the first respondent. The first respondent was directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.