9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the clearance of goods through their CHA M/s Mauli World Wide Logistics. They cleared the subject goods as "Artificial Fur" @USD 2 per Kg and classified them under CTH 43040019. On the strength of declaration made by the appellants and comparing the same with the contemporaneous imports of same/like items, the assessing officer assessed the Bill of Entry No.6906199 dated 30.05.2012 after loading the value @USD 2.7 per Kg. However, after examination by the shed officers, it was found that the goods were basically knitted fabric having piles of men made fibres and should have been classified under CTH 60019200 attracting basic customs duty @10% or Rs. 100/- per Kg, whichever is higher. On reasonable belief of mis-classification and mis-dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the Commissioner to decide the appellants' letter dated 18.09.2012 in accordance with law within one month of the receipt of the Order dated 13.08.2013. In compliance to the Order dated 13.08.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court, the request dated 18.09.2012 of the appellants was disposed off by the Additional Commissioner vide letter C.No. VIII(ICD FBD)6/Artex Textile/BE 6906199/368A/12/2680 dated 13.09.2013 allowing the appellants to re-export the subject goods covered under Bill of Entry No.6906199 dated 30.05.2012 after redeeming the same on payment of fine, penalty, duty and applicable interest thereon in compliance to Order-in-Original No.02/MK/ADC/Adjn/2012-13 dated 01.08.2012 and then to claim drawback upto 98% of import duty paid on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 272 (Tri. - Mum.). 4. Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the question which arises for consideration is whether the Department had acted fairly and properly in considering the request for re-export of goods made by the appellants. We find that the matter had already been adjudicated on 01.08.2012, wherein the goods were confiscated and were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also imposed on the appellants. The goods were ordered to be re-assessed @Rs.267.30 per Kg. Thereafter the appellants sought permission to re-export the goods on 18.09.2012. Since their reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt personal hearing, the fact that the order was to be passed in accordance with law means that principles of natural justice were required to be followed by the adjudicating authority while deciding the request of re-export of goods. Even if the appellants did not ask the adjudicating authority to grant personal hearing for request for re-export, it was incumbent on the adjudicating authority to provide them an opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the matter. 7. In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh the request of the appellants for re-export of goods after granting them a fair opportunity to present their case. 8. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. (Operativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
