2014 (7) TMI 1234 - AT - Customs

DEEC scheme - benefit of N/N. 96/2009 Cus. dt. 11.09.2009 - condition of export obligation - Tribunal by Final Order dt. 22.1.2004 decided the appeals against OIO dt. 22.11.2012 and OIO No.20684/2013 dt. 12.6.2013. In that Final order it was recorded that it appears that importers M/s.Shree Maruti Impex had not filed any appeal against the impugned order. Now it transpires that M/s.Shree Maruti Impex and other co-noticees filed appeals against the impugned OIO No.20685/2013 dt. 13.6.2013 against which the present appeals are filed before the Tribunal. Held that - as the Tribunal already remanded the matter in respect of other adjudication orders dt.22.11.2012 and 12.6.2013 it is appropriate that the present appellants also should be given an opportunity to defend their case before the adjudicating authority - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the claim of the ownership of the seized goods as claimed by M/s.Nupur Impex in terms of the order of the Hon ble High Court on the basis of documents and provisions of Customs Act and thereafter to decide the case in respect of the other co-notices in accordance with law. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under Customs Notification
2. Seizure of goods by DRI
3. Adjudication by Commissioner of Customs
4. Appeal before CESTAT
5. Remand of the matter by Tribunal
6. Pending adjudication before the adjudicating authority

Analysis:

1. The case involves the denial of exemption under Customs Notification to M/s. Shree Maruti Impex for the clearance of "Mulberry Raw Silk." The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized the goods after finding that the appellant had diverted earlier consignments meant for export into the local market. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty, interest, penalty, and redemption fine on various persons involved.

2. High Sea Seller, M/s. Nupur Impex, sought the release of seized goods by claiming the status of an importer. The Commissioner of Customs allowed their prayer initially, but the Revenue appealed before CESTAT. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter after reviewing the DRI report.

3. The Commissioner of Customs passed several orders rejecting claims for release of goods by various parties, including High Sea Sellers and importers. The Tribunal set aside some adjudication orders and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings.

4. The Tribunal found that certain importers, including M/s. Shree Maruti Impex, had not filed appeals against the impugned orders initially. However, they later filed appeals against subsequent orders, leading to the present appeals before the Tribunal.

5. In a previous Final Order, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to determine the ownership of seized goods claimed by High Sea Sellers. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the provisions of the Customs Act and Regulations while deciding on duty, interest, and penalties.

6. The Tribunal remanded the appeals to the adjudicating authority to decide the ownership claims of the seized goods based on the High Court's order and Customs provisions. The appellants were directed to cooperate during the adjudication process, and the stay petitions were disposed of accordingly. The Tribunal stressed the need for proper opportunity of hearing before any decision.