9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause as to why benefit under Notification No. 60/2002 should not be denied and further disputing the description and valuation of the pearls under the live consignment. The learned Commissioner is in error in holding that there is sufficient cause for extension of time for issue of show cause notice under the provisions of Section 110(2). - The Revenue directed to return the pearls seized after retaining samples - Decided in favor of assessee. - C/90141/2014-Mum - Final Order No. A/1804/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 23-6-2015 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) Shri C. Subba Reddy, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.S. Reddy, Dy. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The assessee is an importer and is in appeal against Order-in- Original No. SD/INT/AIU/330/2014-AP ST , dated 27-11-2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Sahar whereby in respect of raw pearls imported by Bill of Entry dated 8-4-2014 which were seized on 29-5-2014, as the Revenue prima facie found them to be mis declared and/or undervalued and thereby resorted to further investigation in the matter. By the impugned order, the time limit for issue of show cause notice have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over including Bills of Entry for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 along with other documents as per the Panchanama. Thereafter, another Panchanama was drawn on 29-5-2014 seizing the pearls under import vide Live Bill of Entry dated 8-4-2014. 2.1 Thereafter, the statement of the partner of the appellant was recorded on 3-6-2014 and again on 17-6-2014 and further on 24-6-2014, and the last statement was recorded on 29-9-2014, wherein it was stated by the partner of the appellant that the pearls were imported in the same manner and from the same supplier from whom they have been importing all through the last two years and the pearls are neither processed nor are worked or misdeclared on their part as per the description in the documents. The appellant also filed various explanations by letters from time to time during the course of investigation after 29-5-2014, wherein it is also mentioned in the reply to show cause notice dated 26-11-2014 that the Customs authorities were employing force and undue influence on the appellant to pay duty on the assessed value and to further furnish Bank Guarantee and take clearance of the consignment, which was refused by the appellant. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... except in the present live consignment. 2.4 The appellant further mentioned that they have co-operated in the investigation and have given explanation as well as the relevant documents including the details of its customers. It was also mentioned that the customers of the appellant are processors of raw pearls, which facts stood established from the Panchanama drawn at the customers premises, wherein the chemicals were found which are required for processing and further working out the pearls. It was further urged that the Revenue had sufficient time for investigation of live consignment and as such the request for extension of time is bad as there have been no sufficient reason and moreover the high-handed nature of the investigating officers and coercive measure for making the payment of the duty as assessed by them and to take the clearance of the goods. The appellant further contended that there is no ostensible reason for grant of extension of time, as the goods under seizure is examined, subjected to Laboratory test and further the appellant have provided the necessary explanation and documents and no case of fraud on their part is found in the investigation. It was furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that they are making the inquiry with respect to past import. Such contention is vague, in view to the fact that after 29-9-2014 neither any further statements have been recorded nor any further documents are called from the appellant. The show cause notice states that the reference has been made through proper channel to conduct overseas inquiry. It appears that the details and data of such information have not been given. Further, in para 7 of the show cause notice it is specifically mentioned that Bill of Entry filed by importer i.e. appellant M/s. Beauty Gems, pertaining to past clearance are required in connection with the investigation. It is further urged by the learned Counsel that for the purpose of inquiry into past import, no extension could have been granted, when the inquiry with respect to live Bill of Entry is already completed. 4.1 The learned Counsel further relies on the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs Superintendent (Preventive), Calcutta v. Charan Das Malhotra - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477 (S.C.), wherein some watches were seized from Charan Das Malhotra on 19-3-1963 by the Customs Department. Some of the watch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Section 110(2), and that therefore, extension of that period has become necessary. He cannot, therefore, extend the time unless he is satisfied on facts placed before him that there is a sufficient cause necessitating extension. The burden of proof in such an inquiry is clearly on the Customs Officer applying for extension and not on the person from whom the goods are seized. 4.2 The learned Counsel further relies on Harbans Lal v. Collector of Customs - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.), wherein it was held that the seized goods are required to be returned to owner unless show cause notice is issued within 6 months. It was further held in the case of Harbans Lal (supra) that the show cause notice is not issued, the seized goods have to be returned, but the Revenue can proceed in terms of the notice issued under Section 124 as the two sections are independent. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside of the impugned order with consequential relief. 5. The learned AR relies on the impugned order and states that in view of the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that certain inquiry was still in progress, more particularly for the past imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
