2022 (1) TMI 1079

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee of Commissioners is, to say the least, bizarre as the plea for setting aside the impugned order is claimed to be rooted in the failure to remand even while holding that principles of natural justice had been denied in the proceedings before the original authority. In effect, the review seeks 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. 2. The respondent, M/s Gurunanak Motor House, had filed six shipping bills on 14th January 2019 for export of goods valued at Rs. 8,01,13,254 under claim for drawback of 1% and benefit of 'duty credit scrips' under 'merchandise exports from India scheme (MEIS)' amounting to Rs. 16,02,265.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant and Learned Authorised Representative, it would appear to us that the appellant concurs with the determination of the first appellate authority that the principles of natural justice had not been observed in the proceedings before the original authority and the only grievance appears to be that an opportunity for rectification was not afforded to the exchequer. 5. 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 motiva....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t a remand may have served in furthering the case of Revenue. 7. The first appellate authority has also pointed out that resort to rule 6 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 by adopting the outcome of a market survey does not appear to be tenable owing to the lapse of time between the filing of the shipping bills and the survey - anywhere between nine months to one year. Indeed, he was also critical of the reliance placed on one of the surveys to the complete exclusion of the other which had also taken place; it was also noted that no reason had been assigned for undertaking the second survey. The first appellate authority cannot be faulted for not having considered a remand to the original authority t....