CESTAT overturns goods confiscation for mis-declaration, emphasizes speaking order

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, BANGALORE set aside the order of confiscation of goods due to mis-declaration of imported goods, citing lack of reasons and violation of principles of natural justice. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for a detailed consideration, allowing the release of goods on bond and a de novo hearing. The appellants' explanation for the mis-declaration was considered, and the Tribunal emphasized the need for a speaking order with proper justification.

---

---

Issues Involved: Violation of principles of natural justice, Mis-declaration of imported goods, Confiscation of goods, Duty levied without reasons, Release of goods on bond, Remand for detailed consideration

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, BANGALORE, the issue of violation of principles of natural justice was raised due to a case involving mis-declaration of imported goods. The appellants had imported rectifier NP2500 UAC WITH NPC IB CARD, but upon examination, it was found that there was a mis-declaration. The appellants argued that it was a genuine mistake in dispatching the correct document, which they immediately rectified. However, they were not issued a show cause notice, and the Commissioner confiscated the goods, granting redemption on a fine and penalty, and demanding duty.

The learned Counsel contended that the order violated principles of natural justice as there was no request for waiver of show cause notice to the Dy. Commissioner. They argued that no duty was leviable, and the confirmation of duty without reasons was unjust. They requested the release of goods on bond and a detailed hearing. On the other hand, the JCDR opposed the release of goods on bond but agreed to remand the case for a detailed order after issuing a show cause notice.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the order was not a speaking order, lacking reasons to support the mis-declaration finding. The appellants' explanation for the mistake in sending documents was noted, and a contradiction in the order was observed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a decision on releasing the goods on bond and a detailed consideration within one month after notifying the appellants. The appeal was allowed for a de novo consideration by the Commissioner. The Registry was directed to expedite the issuance of this order.

---