Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 491 - CESTAT MUMBAIDetermination of the legality of confiscation of the impugned goods under section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 to be redeemed - levy of penalty - goods did not match the documents of clearance and section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The appellant had obtained clarifications from the supplier that, in their local market, ‘synthetic yarn’ was available or marketed under certain ‘denierage’ which was adopted for the purpose of invoice and other documents on the basis of which the declaration was made in the bill of entry. The clarifications received from the overseas supplier was not within the possession of the adjudicating authority who appeared to have been influenced only by the discrepancy of the ‘denierage’ and by the endorsement on the bill of entry produced by the appellant. The notings about availment of CENVAT credit as demonstrating transfer may well be a hypothesis that could have been tested from available records. It cannot be concluded whether the adjudication was carried out after affording the appellant of every opportunity of pleading their defence. It would be in the interest of justice for the adjudicating authority to take a fresh decision on the mater after giving an opportunity to the appellant to refute all allegations and also to consciously discharge the onus imposed on them under section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|