TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court orders re-decision on re-export request; Tribunal emphasizes fair opportunity for appellants</h1> <h3>Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C., Delhi-IV</h3> Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C., Delhi-IV - 2018 (360) E.L.T. 382 (Tri. - Chan.) Issues:1. Misclassification and misdeclaration of imported goods.2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty.3. Request for re-export of goods and denial of the same.4. Lack of personal hearing before deciding on the re-export request.Analysis:1. The appellants imported a consignment of 'Artificial Fur' but the goods were found to be '100% Polyester Knitted Cut Pile Fabric' upon examination. The goods were classified incorrectly, leading to misdeclaration and misclassification under the wrong category, attracting a higher customs duty.2. Subsequently, the goods were confiscated, valued at Rs. 46,81,749, and a fine of Rs. 15,00,000 was imposed along with a personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000. The appellants were allowed to redeem the goods upon payment of the fine and penalty. The appellants then sought permission to re-export the goods, which was initially denied by the Revenue department.3. The appellants approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking permission to re-export the goods, and the court directed the department to re-decide the matter within a month. The adjudicating authority then allowed the re-export on payment of necessary dues and granted permission to claim drawback on the import duty paid.4. The main issue raised was the lack of a personal hearing before deciding on the re-export request. The appellants argued that they were not granted a personal hearing before the re-export order was passed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the re-export order, stating that the High Court did not make a personal hearing a condition precedent. However, the Tribunal found that principles of natural justice required a fair opportunity for a personal hearing before deciding on the re-export request.5. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case before deciding on the re-export request. The decision was made to ensure that the principles of natural justice were followed in the adjudication process. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, allowing for a fresh decision on the re-export request with proper procedural fairness.
TaxTMI 