9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of the request for retesting tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice. The department also maintains records of imports undertaken by the various importers and, therefore, the department should have verified from their own records, before rejecting the documents submitted by the appellants. If it is found on such verification that the details given by the appellants are incorrect, a specific finding to that effect should have been recorded. This has not been done in the present case. This also constitutes another violation of the principles of natural justice. The seized goods which are available with the department shall be re-tested by any member of the approved panel from the departments list so as to establis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id provisions. He has also confirmed duty demand of ₹ 52,45,104/- on the imported diamonds which has been replaced and also duty demand of ₹ 1,69,746/- on imported capital goods which have been diverted. A penalty of ₹ 25 lakhs has been imposed on the importer and ₹ 10 lakhs on the Managing Director; ₹ 50,000/each on Shri Nimesh Sanghvi and Shri Anand Sanghvi, employees of the appellant-firm; ₹ 25,000/- on Shri Vikram Pawar and a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on Shri Mohit Shah, under the various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence the appellants are before us. 2.1. This is the second round of litigation. When the matter had come up earlier under appeal Nos: C/434 to 439/2005, this Tribunal examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the confiscated diamonds are in the custody of the department and it being an old matter wherein the goods were seized in 1998, therefore, we direct the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the matter within 60 days of the communication of this order. All other issues are kept open. It is in pursuance of the said remand order, the impugned order has been passed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the seized diamonds were examined by the jewellery appraiser and a member from the trade and it is based on the certificate given by the jewellery appraiser, counter signed by the member from the trade, the adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that the 997.09 carats of diamonds seized are substituted d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the mere rejection of the evidences submitted by the appellant will not suffice and the department has to establish their case with their own documents since it is the department who is alleging substitution of imported goods. It is therefore, his plea that the matter needs to go back to the adjudicating authority for allowing re-testing of the goods under seizure and also verification of the documents submitted by the appellants with records maintained by the department itself. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that the appellants have admitted to substitution of the goods and, therefore, it is for the appellants to lead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case. This also constitutes another violation of the principles of natural justice. 5.2. In these circumstances, we are constrained to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration. The seized goods which are available with the department shall be re-tested by any member of the approved panel from the departments list so as to establish the identity of the seized diamonds with respect to cut, clarity and caratage. A copy of the test report shall be given to the appellants to enable them to make their defence submissions in case the said test report negates the claim of the appellants. Similarly, the department should verify from their own records whether the details furnished by the appellant with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
