9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1573 - AT - CustomsViolation of principles of natural justice - reassessment of goods imported by the appellant under a different tariff heading without issuing a speaking order as mandated by section 17(5) of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - It is seen from the records that the goods cleared for classification by the importer against heading no. 9022 9090 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act 1975 with attendant benefit of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17th March 2012 was instead subject to duties corresponding to heading no. 8471 5000 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975. The importer while paying the higher duties as assessed signified their disagreement by requesting for the order contemplated in section 17(5) of Customs Act 1962. It would appear that this request was ignored by the proper officer entrusted with the assessment. It would appear that the entire proceedings had been conducted behind the back of the appellant as they had not been afforded an opportunity to contest the grounds on which their classification had been rejected by the original as well as first appellate authority. In these circumstances of finding ourselves deprived of the wisdom of the assessing officer on the merits of the competing tariff headings it would be appropriate to insist that this lack be made good. The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded back to the original authority for compliance with the legal requirement under section 17(5) of Customs Act 1962. Petition allowed by way of remand.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Reassessment Without a Speaking Order Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates the issuance of a speaking order within 15 days of reassessment unless the importer consents to the reassessment in writing. The precedents cited include the Apex Court's decision in State of Jharkhand vs Ambay Cements and HPL Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, which emphasize the necessity of following statutory procedures and the burden of proof on the revenue. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the proper officer failed to issue a speaking order, which is a statutory requirement. The first appellate authority acknowledged this lapse but chose to decide on the merits instead of remanding for procedural compliance, which the Tribunal found inappropriate. Key Evidence and Findings: The records showed that the importer disagreed with the reassessment and requested a speaking order, which was not provided. This procedural lapse was acknowledged by the first appellate authority. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized the statutory obligation under section 17(5) and found that the failure to issue a speaking order deprived the appellant of the opportunity to contest the reassessment. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal criticized the first appellate authority for assuming the burden of proof and deciding on merits without remanding the matter for compliance with the statutory requirement. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment without a speaking order was procedurally flawed and warranted remand to the original authority for compliance with section 17(5). 2. Classification of Goods Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, requires adherence to the prescribed headings, with the burden of proof on the revenue to justify a different classification than claimed by the importer. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the original and first appellate authorities failed to provide a reasoned decision on the classification, as the speaking order was not issued, and the appellant was not given a chance to contest the classification. Key Evidence and Findings: The goods were initially classified by the importer under heading no. 9022 9090, but were reassessed under heading no. 8471 5000 without a speaking order or adequate reasoning provided to the appellant. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence and reasoning in the reassessment process, which did not meet the legal standards for changing the classification. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal noted the lack of opportunity for the appellant to argue against the reassessment due to the absence of a speaking order. Conclusions: The Tribunal determined that the classification issue needed to be revisited by the original authority with proper procedural compliance. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a speaking order as required by section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, rendered the reassessment procedurally defective. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that statutory obligations must be followed strictly, as established in previous Supreme Court rulings. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for compliance with the legal requirements, ensuring that the appellant is afforded an opportunity to contest the reassessment. Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "If statute has prescribed a particular thing to be done in a particular manner; that thing cannot be allowed to be done in any other way." This underscores the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures. Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is essential in reassessment cases, and the burden of proof lies with the revenue when altering the classification claimed by the importer. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal determined that the procedural lapse in not issuing a speaking order necessitated remand for compliance, and the classification issue should be revisited with proper adherence to statutory requirements.
|
