2016 (8) TMI 429 - AT - Customs

Tribunal restores appeal, upholds dismissal for non-compliance with customs duty regulations.

The Tribunal recalled and restored the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, allowing for a hearing. The appellant, accused of clandestine removal of ... Restoration of appeal – 100% EOU – imported without payment of duty for manufacture – cleared manufactured product without payment of duty - investigation – demand –appeal - non-compliance with direction of pre-deposit – appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – Held that: - the appellant admitted the clearance of goods without payment of duty. Affidavit – belated unsubstantiated explanation of the appellant – Held that: - It is a cardinal principle of evidence that the facts admitted need not be proved. In the present case, the Director of the appellant, responding to the investigation of the DGCEI officers about the imported raw material, not only accepted the clearance of the imported fabrics without payment of duty to one Shri Iqbalbhai before the panchas but also reiterated the said fact in his subsequent statements collected on 20.10.2000 and 20.8.2001.These statement are never retracted in clear terms. Therefore, the allegation that the statements were obtained under duress is also not substantiated. Issues:1. Restoration of Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.2. Allegation of clandestine removal of imported goods without payment of duty.3. Rejection of belated explanation by the appellant.4. Admissibility of statements obtained during investigation.5. Compliance with customs duty regulations.Issue 1: Restoration of Appeal dismissed for non-prosecutionThe appellant sought restoration of their appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. The advocate argued that the order was passed without hearing the appellant and requested a chance to present their case. With no objection from the Revenue's authorized representative, the Tribunal recalled the order and restored the appeal, allowing the case to proceed for hearing and disposal.Issue 2: Allegation of clandestine removal of imported goodsThe case involved the appellant, an EOU, being accused of importing fabrics without paying duty and subsequently selling them without authorization. The appellant contested the allegations, citing discrepancies in the investigation process, lack of physical stock verification, and coercion in obtaining statements. The Revenue heavily relied on the panchanama and statements of the Director to support the accusation of clandestine removal.Issue 3: Rejection of belated explanation by the appellantThe appellant's belated explanation regarding the sale of imported goods was rejected by the authority, considering the timing of submission and lack of corroborating evidence. The Tribunal upheld the rejection, emphasizing the importance of substantiated explanations in such cases.Issue 4: Admissibility of statements obtained during investigationThe statements obtained from the Director of the appellant during the investigation played a crucial role in determining the alleged clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal found the statements consistent and unambiguous, refusing the appellant's claim of coercion and highlighting the Director's repeated admissions of unauthorized clearance.Issue 5: Compliance with customs duty regulationsThe Tribunal analyzed whether the appellant had cleared imported goods without utilizing them for manufacturing as required for duty exemption. Based on the evidence, including statements and physical verification, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had indeed sold the imported fabrics without paying duty, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lacking merit.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal due to the lack of merit and supporting evidence in favor of the appellant.