2024 (12) TMI 173 - AT - Customs

Dry dates import classification dispute remanded due to procedural violations in witness cross-examination under Section 138B

M/s KL INTERNATIONAL, SHRI JATIN ARORA, MOHAMMAD SHAHZEB AZAD, PANKAJ TIWARI, SHRI PREM, VIJAY S YADAV, RAJVEER SINGH, SHAILENDRA DHANANJAY SINGH, PARSHOTAM PRAJAPATI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-CUSTOMS (P) JAMNAGAR

CESTAT Ahmedabad remanded a case involving dry dates import classification dispute. Appellants declared goods as UAE origin under CTH 08041030 (20% duty) ... Classification and origin of imported goods - import of ‘Dry Dates” by appellant - retraction of statements - case of the department is that Appellants had filed Bills of Entry declaring the country of origin of the said goods as UAE, classified the said goods under CTH 08041030 where the Customs Duty rate is 20% adv. and self-assessed the Bills of Entry whereas correct county of origin of the said goods is Pakistan and therefore, the said goods are classified under CTH 98060000 for which Customs duty rate is 200% adv - HELD THAT:- The officers of DRI and Customs carried out investigation in the matter which includes search at the premises of various person related to the above import transaction and collection of documentary evidences/ digital evidence. Statement of various persons were also recorded. The Ld. Commissioner while confirming the demand observed that during the course of examination of goods, the packing material in which dry dates were packed was showing the name of “Sargodha Jute Mills Ltd. in Pakistan” on it. This concrete and tangible evidence is further corroborated by the deposition of Shri Souvik Sarkar in his statement dtd. 19.11.2021 admitting inter alia, that “in fact the goods have been brought from Pakistan via Dubai to evade the Customs Duty on it, and shri Rajeev Singh in his statement dtd. 19.11.2021 admitting, inter alia, that in fact the goods have been brought from Pakistan via Dubai to evade the Customs Duty on it. In the present Shri Souvik Sarkar retracted his statement via filing affidavit, however the same was not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellant has not requested for any cross-examination of any witness including the independent panchas. However, it is not disputed that appellant has raised objection on the statements of said witness and said persons were not examined in the adjudication proceedings even after the objection of appellants. The appeals filed by Appellants needs to be disposed of by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh by following the principles of natural justice and adherence to the provisions of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 on this point - the matter remanded to the Ld. Adjudicating authority to decide the issue a fresh. Issues:Appeal against Order-In-Original passed by Commissioner of Customs regarding classification and origin of imported goods.Analysis:The appeals were filed against an Order-In-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs pertaining to the classification and origin of imported 'Dry Dates.' The appellant was issued a show cause notice based on intelligence suggesting that the goods were of Pakistani origin but classified under a different category to evade customs duty. The Ld. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, fines, and penalties under the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the change in classification was based on presumption and assumption, lacking concrete evidence to question the country of origin certificate issued by UAE authorities. The appellant also challenged the reliability of certain digital and handwritten evidence presented by the revenue, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence linking the imported goods to Pakistan.The appellant further contended that the reliance on jute bags with markings from Pakistan found in the consignment was insufficient to establish the origin of the goods, as these bags were reported to be washed and reused, with no conclusive evidence linking them to Pakistan. Additionally, the appellant disputed the relevance of certain documents, such as the Bill of Lading and mobile phone data, presented by the revenue as evidence of the goods' origin. The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the evidence provided by the revenue, questioning the validity and significance of the information presented.On the other hand, the revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the evidence related to the packing material and statements of individuals involved in the import transaction. The revenue argued that the concrete evidence, including the markings on the packing material and statements of individuals admitting the goods' origin from Pakistan, supported their case for reclassification and duty imposition.After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the issue of the goods' origin and classification required further consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice and procedural requirements under the Customs Act. The Tribunal set aside the previous order and directed a reevaluation of the issues involved, keeping all aspects open for review.In summary, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh determination, highlighting the importance of following procedural norms and ensuring a fair assessment of the classification and origin of the imported goods. The decision underscored the significance of upholding principles of natural justice and conducting a thorough examination of the evidence presented before reaching a final conclusion.