TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>HC quashes customs order on arecanut classification and valuation under CTH 21069030 for natural justice breach despite non-cooperation</h1> HC set aside customs order regarding classification and valuation of imported arecanut under CTH 21069030 due to natural justice violation. Though ... Classification and valuation of imported goods - Arecanut - to be classified under CTH 21069030 or not - provisional release of the imported consignment - case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was passed - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has not co-operated with the respondents as the petitioner neither filed a reply nor participated in the personal hearing. The impugned order is otherwise appealable in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Commissioner (Appeals). If the appeal has to be filed, the petitioner has to deposit 7.5% of the duty demanded or the penalty levied therein and produce the proof of such payment. Therefore, to balance the interest of the Customs Department and the petitioner, the impugned order is set aside and the case remitted back to the third respondent to pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. Petition disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Classification and valuation of imported goods.2. Violation of principles of natural justice.3. Petitioner's non-cooperation and antecedents.4. Requirement of deposit for appeal.5. Remand for fresh adjudication.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification and Valuation of Imported Goods:The petitioner challenged the impugned Order-in-Original No.TUT-CUSTM-PRV-JC-24/2024 dated 27.03.2024, where the third respondent confirmed the demands proposed in Show Cause No.226/2022. The operative portion of the impugned order included rejecting the declared description of 'Betel nut product (known as Supari Unflavoured)' and reclassifying it as 'Areca nut split' under CTH 08028020 instead of CTH 21069030. The declared assessable value was also rejected and redetermined, leading to confiscation under sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with a redemption fine and penalties imposed.2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioner claimed that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had requested the third respondent to keep the adjudication proceedings in abeyance pending the disposal of W.A.(MD) No.1285 of 2023. Despite this, the petitioner neither filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice nor attended personal hearings.3. Petitioner's Non-cooperation and Antecedents:The petitioner had a history of non-cooperation, failing to comply with summonses and not participating in personal hearings. The antecedents included a previous incident where the petitioner had mis-declared the classification of similar goods and diverted them to a private warehouse, substituting sawdust for the imported goods. This led to a conditional bail granted on payment of fines and penalties amounting to Rs. 35,00,000/-.4. Requirement of Deposit for Appeal:The impugned order is appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, before the Commissioner (Appeals), requiring the petitioner to deposit 7.5% of the duty demanded or the penalty levied. This deposit is to balance the interests of the Customs Department and the petitioner.5. Remand for Fresh Adjudication:The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the third respondent for fresh adjudication on merits and in accordance with the law. The impugned order was treated as an Addendum to the Show Cause Notice No.226/2022. The petitioner was required to deposit 7.5% of the disputed tax amount to secure the Customs Department's interest. All recovery proceedings were to be kept in abeyance pending further orders in the remand proceedings, with the expectation that the petitioner would file a reply within 30 days and cooperate with the remand proceedings.Conclusion:The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. The petitioner was given a chance to participate in the remand proceedings, failing which the order would stand revoked, allowing the respondents to proceed as per the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
