Tribunal sets aside orders, releases goods, deems show cause notice invalid

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation and penalty orders due to lack of evidence and jurisdictional issues. The confiscated goods were ordered to be released, and the show cause notice was deemed invalid. The decision favored the appellant, providing relief on 04.07.2022.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation and redemption fine.
2. Penalty imposition.
3. Alleged clandestine removal of goods.
4. Validity of evidence and statements.
5. Jurisdiction of the officers issuing the show cause notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation and Redemption Fine:
The appellant, a dealer of iron and steel products, faced confiscation of 1,46,723 kg of pipes valued at Rs. 50,62,013/- and a redemption fine of Rs. 8 lakhs under Section 111(j) of the Customs Act. The goods were seized on the belief that they were cleared by M/s NTPL without payment of customs duty. However, the appellant contended that the goods were lawfully purchased from the open market, supported by purchase invoices and ledger accounts. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove that the goods were received clandestinely from SEZ unit NTPL, as required under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The confiscation order was set aside due to lack of evidence.

2. Penalty Imposition:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(ii) of the Customs Act, alleging their involvement in the clandestine receipt of goods from NTPL. The appellant argued that the penalty was based on uncorroborated statements and assumptions. The Tribunal noted that the statements used as evidence were either retracted or not tested by cross-examination, thus lacking evidentiary value. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside.

3. Alleged Clandestine Removal of Goods:
The investigation revealed that NTPL allegedly cleared goods without payment of customs duty and sold them to various firms, including the appellant. Statements from NTPL's Director and employees indicated that the appellant was a major buyer of these goods. However, the appellant provided documentary evidence of lawful purchase from the open market. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's allegations were based on assumptions and lacked tangible evidence, leading to the dismissal of the charges against the appellant.

4. Validity of Evidence and Statements:
The appellant challenged the reliance on statements recorded during the investigation, arguing they were given under coercion and without the opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the statements had no evidentiary value as they were not tested per Section 138B of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of cross-examination to validate such statements, thereby rejecting the evidence presented by the Revenue.

5. Jurisdiction of the Officers Issuing the Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that the show cause notice was issued by officers of DGCEI, who were not the proper officers under Section 28(1)/28(4) of the Customs Act, as held by the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Limited. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, rendering it invalid. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Canon India Pvt. Limited, which affirmed that only authorized officers could issue such notices.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of confiscation and penalty. The confiscated goods were ordered to be released, and the show cause notice was deemed without jurisdiction. The decision was pronounced on 04.07.2022, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

---