9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority to provide them an opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the matter - matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/52408/2014-CU[DB] - A/61856/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Prem Ranjan, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Shri Tarun Kumar, A.R. for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Devender Singh The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order. 2 Brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported one consignment of Artificial Fur against Commercial Invoice No.2012136 dated 27.04.2012, from M/s Raise World Ltd., Hong Kong and they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and personal penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- was also imposed on the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants vide their letter dated 18.09.2012 requested for permission to re-export the goods back to the foreign supplier. The aforesaid request of the appellants was not considered by Revenue on the ground that the request had been made after the adjudication proceedings were over and at the time of personal hearing during the adjudication no such request was made by the appellants. Consequently, the appellants filed a Civil Writ Petition No.2701/2013 in the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court seeking directions to process the request of the appellants for grant of permission to re-export the subject goods. The Hon ble High Court vide their Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Complying with the same, the adjudicating authority allowed the appellant to re-export the subject goods after redeeming the same on payment of fine, penalty, duty and applicable interest thereon and then to claim drawback upto 98% of import duty paid on the said goods. He contended that before passing this order, the adjudicating authority did not give any personal hearing to them. Ld. Advocate also drew our attention to para 7 of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), in which Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the re-export order and justified not giving a personal hearing arguing that Hon ble High Court did not make the personal hearing a condition precedent to decide the said request. Ld. Advocate also relied upon the case law of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned letter dated 13.09.2013, is concerned, I find that this contention has no credence because when their case of mis-declaration was decided by the adjudicating authority, a proper opportunity to represent their case, had been granted to them. Secondly, the Hon ble High Court had only directed to decide the request of the appellants and the personal hearing in the matter was not made condition precedent while deciding the said request and thirdly the appellants had never asked the Additional Commissioner, Delhi IV, Faridabad to grant them personal hearing before deciding their request for re-export. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the appellants on this account. We are not convinced by the reasoning giving by the Ld. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
