2022 (5) TMI 1369 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - purity of the imported goods was less than the required parameter - power of Commissioner to order re-export of goods as per Circular No. 100/2003-Cus. dated 28.11.2003 - HELD THAT - Instead of delving much into the legality and admissibility of additional evidence etc. what is required to be observed here is that the basis of the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is in sharp contrast to the evidence in which he had placed his reliance. To start with he observed that in the Order-in-Original the adjudicating authority had noted that purity percentage was not available in the purchased order and for that reason he disbelieved the copy of purchased order submitted by the Appellant. However any prudent man apart from being a judge would have got the temptation to call for the lower Court s record and examine the purchase order himself that was being submitted to the adjudicating authority before giving a finding so as to make it rational and believable. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is illogical inconsistent and not supported by any reason and therefore contrary to the dictates of Section 129(2) 129(3) after making such further enquiry and 129(4) and in view of plethora decisions discretionary powers of the Court can be interfered with when the order is arbitrary or perverse. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Option for redemption on payment of fine under Section 125(1) for re-export of goods.
3. Penalty under Section 112(a) imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs.
4. Interpretation of Circular No. 100/2003-Cus. regarding re-export of goods.
5. Admissibility of additional evidence in customs adjudication proceedings.
6. Examination of evidence and documents in customs appeal process.
7. Legality and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of imported goods due to impurity issues, leading to the imposition of a fine and penalty. The appellant sought re-export of the goods based on a bonafide mistake by the overseas supplier, invoking Circular No. 100/2003-Cus. The appellant argued that the penalty should be waived as the mistake was not on their part, supported by legal precedents emphasizing the discretion of authorities in such cases.

2. The appellant challenged the order based on the lack of evidence and the misinterpretation of documents by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty citing the importer's admission, despite discrepancies in the evidence presented. The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the Commissioner's reasoning and the evidence, emphasizing the need for a rational and logical basis for the decision.

3. The issue of admissibility of additional evidence arose, with the appellant contesting the rejection of documents like certificate of analysis and sales contract. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner's reliance on limited evidence and failure to consider crucial documents, highlighting the procedural errors in the customs appeal process.

4. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and enabling the appellant to re-export the goods without any fine or penalty. The decision emphasized the need for a reasoned and logical approach in customs adjudication, citing legal provisions and precedents supporting the interference with arbitrary or perverse orders.

Conclusion:
The judgment focused on the procedural and evidentiary aspects of customs adjudication, highlighting the importance of a rational and evidence-based approach in decision-making. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal underscored the need for authorities to consider all relevant evidence and legal provisions while ensuring fairness and justice in customs proceedings.