Tribunal grants appeal, emphasizes procedural compliance in Customs Act for fairness .

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the Customs Act to ensure fairness and legal validity in customs proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of quantity in imported goods
2. Compliance with provisions of Section 28(5) and Section 28(6) of Customs Act, 1962
3. Validity of corrigenda to show cause notice
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 114A without proposal in the Show Cause Notice

Analysis:

Issue 1: Misdeclaration of quantity in imported goods
The appellants imported goods and shifted them to a free trade warehousing zone in Chennai. The department found misdeclaration of quantity in the consignments, leading to a show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods, revision of value, and penalties. The appellants paid the differential duty, interest, and penalty, requesting conclusion of the matter under Section 28(6) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Compliance with provisions of Section 28(5) and Section 28(6) of Customs Act, 1962
The appellants complied with Section 28(5) by paying duty, interest, and penalty within 30 days of the show cause notice. The Commissioner informed that the proceedings were conclusive under Section 28(6). However, corrigenda were issued after compliance, seeking to revise the show cause notice, which was deemed impermissible as per the Act.

Issue 3: Validity of corrigenda to show cause notice
The Tribunal held that issuing corrigenda after compliance with Section 28(5) and without challenging the closure of the case breached trust and defeated the purpose of reducing litigation. The corrigenda were issued without proper authority and were deemed to be without jurisdiction, as the compliance had been accepted and the proceedings should have been concluded under Section 28(6).

Issue 4: Imposition of penalty under Section 114A without proposal in the Show Cause Notice
The Tribunal noted that penalty under Section 114A was imposed without being proposed in the Show Cause Notice, rendering the impugned order legally infirm. The appellants, having followed the provisions of Section 28, were entitled to the finality of the issue under Section 28(6), leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the Customs Act to ensure fairness and legal validity in customs proceedings.

---