Tribunal overturns order, releases goods upon duty payment. Authority fined for violating natural justice.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the release of the goods on payment of appropriate duty. The adjudicating authority was fined for its conduct, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the government's policy of ease of doing business.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Requirement of BIS certificate for the imported goods.
3. Applicability of transitional provisions under the Foreign Trade Policy.
4. Legality of the confiscation and imposition of penalty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the impugned order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The show-cause notice was issued on 28/05/2019 and served at 5 PM, directing the appellant to reply by 10-12 AM the next day. The relied-upon documents were not furnished with the show-cause notice. The appellant requested a week's time and the opportunity for cross-examination, which was denied. The adjudicating authority passed the order without granting a reasonable opportunity for personal hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that the rules of natural justice are the minimum standards of fair decision-making and cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI.

2. Requirement of BIS Certificate for the Imported Goods:
The appellant argued that the imported goods did not fall under the category requiring a BIS certificate. The goods were declared as Galvanised Iron Wire under HSN code 72172020, and there was no evidence to classify them as mild steel wire requiring BIS certification under IS 280:2006. The Tribunal found that the authorities did not provide admissible evidence to support the requirement of a BIS certificate for the imported goods.

3. Applicability of Transitional Provisions under the Foreign Trade Policy:
The appellant claimed that the goods were covered by the transitional provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. The advance payments were made on 29/10/2018 and 13/11/2018, and the goods were imported before 18/12/2018. The Tribunal agreed that the appellant was covered by the transitional provisions, allowing imports without BIS certification if the shipment was made within the validity period of an irrevocable commercial letter of credit established before the imposition of restrictions.

4. Legality of the Confiscation and Imposition of Penalty:
The Tribunal found that even if the goods required a BIS certificate, the authorities should have allowed redemption of the goods against payment of a fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The absolute confiscation was not warranted. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, directing the original authority to release the goods on payment of appropriate duty.

Additional Observations:
The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority's conduct, highlighting the illegal detention of goods not requiring a BIS certificate and the failure to comply with the High Court's order. The Tribunal imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on the adjudicating authority for violating the principles of natural justice and harming the appellant's interests.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the release of the goods on payment of appropriate duty. The adjudicating authority was fined for its conduct, and the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the government's policy of ease of doing business.

---