Tribunal overturns Appeal Commissioner's decision on misdeclaration of imported goods

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus M/s. Sree Nakoda Enterprises

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus M/s. Sree Nakoda Enterprises - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods.
2. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD).
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Burden of proof regarding wrong supply.
5. Legality of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Summary:

1. Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:
The respondent declared the imported goods as "Polyethylene Laminated in Rolls" under CTH 3921 1900. However, upon examination, the goods were found to be "PVC Flex Fabrics," which attracted Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) under Notification No. 79/2010-Cus. dated 30.07.2010. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared description and value, redetermined the value, imposed ADD, and ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD):
The Adjudicating Authority imposed ADD of Rs.11,14,122/- under Notification No. 82/2011-Cus. dated 25.08.2011 and differential customs duties of Rs.2,80,168/- on the enhanced value. The goods were also confiscated with an option to redeem on payment of a fine and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The respondent argued that the Department failed to issue a Show Cause Notice or offer a personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent had waived the Show Cause Notice and participated in the personal hearing, thus the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this ground was unsustainable.

4. Burden of Proof Regarding Wrong Supply:
The respondent claimed that the wrong consignment was sent by the foreign supplier and requested permission to re-export the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this claim without conclusive evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the importer to prove the wrong supply, which was not adequately discharged by the respondent.

5. Legality of the Commissioner (Appeals) Order:
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in granting relief without substantial evidence and in stepping into the shoes of the Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) also failed to cross-check the veracity of the supplier's letter and did not follow the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error in allowing the respondent's appeal without sufficient evidence, thereby setting aside the impugned order and allowing the Revenue's appeal.