2022 (1) TMI 1079 - AT - Customs

Appeal dismissed due to lack of natural justice in Customs Act case.

Commissioner of Customs, NS-II, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Raigad Versus Guru Nanak Motor House, Navi Mumbai

The appeal was dismissed by the appellate tribunal, upholding the first appellate authority's decision to set aside the original authority's order due to ... Principles of natural justice - plea for setting aside the impugned order is claimed to be rooted in the failure to remand - seeking restoration of the detriment visited on the respondent herein merely owing to the first appellate authority having decided the issue on merit as well as propriety - HELD THAT:- It has been admitted to in the first ground of appeal that it was by hasty and improper reading that the request from the importer for final disposal had been misinterpreted as waiver of show cause notice and of right to be heard in person. There is nothing on record to give credence to this explanation and it does appear odd that a review procedure that should have motivated seeking of appellate remedy against the original order has, instead, chosen to articulate a perspective merely for overcoming an unfavorable outcome - The first appellate authority cannot be faulted for not having considered a remand to the original authority that would serve no purpose other than prolonging the agony of the exporter without, in any way, gratifying the ‘benefit denial mode’ that the customs authorities appear to have imbued themselves as far as the present dispute is concerned. Considering the narrative of the investigation undertaken by the jurisdictional authorities and the lack thereof which rendered the order of the original authority to be untenable in law, it is concluded that the impugned order is not lacking in legality and propriety - Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Appeal against order-in-appeal for denial of natural justice and failure to remand.2. Alleged undervaluation in export goods leading to investigations and re-determination of value.3. Imposition of penalties and confiscation under Customs Act, 1962.4. Lack of observance of principles of natural justice by the original authority.5. Failure to issue show cause notice and rectification at an advanced stage.6. Consideration of remand and purpose in furthering the case of Revenue.7. Tenability of resorting to rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules and reliance on market survey.8. Legality and propriety of the order of the first appellate authority.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal due to the denial of natural justice and failure to remand, despite acknowledging the lack of observance of principles of natural justice by the original authority. The appellant sought restoration of the detriment faced by the respondent, emphasizing the need for rectification at an advanced stage, which was deemed not feasible given the circumstances.2. The case involved allegations of undervaluation in export goods, prompting investigations and re-determination of the value by the original authority. The value of goods for export and past consignments was revised, leading to penalties, confiscation, and redemption offers under the Customs Act, 1962. The first appellate authority concurred with the lack of observance of natural justice, leading to the setting aside of the original authority's order.3. The failure to issue a show cause notice and rectify the situation at an advanced stage was highlighted, with the appellate authority noting the limitations in invoking jurisdiction for further detriment at subsequent levels of appeal. The jurisdictional aspects and the purpose of a remand in advancing the Revenue's case were also deliberated upon.4. The resort to rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules and reliance on a market survey were scrutinized, with concerns raised over the timeliness of the survey and the exclusion of relevant information. The first appellate authority's decision to not consider a remand to prolong the exporter's ordeal without substantial benefit was upheld.5. The appeal primarily focused on the legality and propriety of the first appellate authority's order, with no other relief sought. The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the investigative narrative and the lack of legality and propriety in the original authority's order as reasons for non-interference.This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, emphasizing the procedural and substantive aspects of the case while considering the principles of natural justice and Customs Act provisions.