2000 (5) TMI 357 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of mixed copper scrap.
2. Assessment of goods as scrap or prime goods.
3. Review of order under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Allegations of misdeclaration and suppression of value.
5. Adjudication proceedings and charges against the assessees.

Issue 1: Import of mixed copper scrap
The case involved the import of a consignment of mixed copper scrap by the respondents. Upon examination, it was found that a substantial portion of the goods was not scrap but prime goods. The customs officers re-examined the goods, and the Commissioner held that certain items needed to be assessed on their merits and not as scrap. The importers had waived the show-cause notice and requested a personal hearing, which was granted by the Commissioner. The Commissioner observed that there was no dispute regarding the value of the goods, and since the consignments predominantly contained scrap with some serviceable items, there was no ground for confiscation or imposition of fines or penalties.

Issue 2: Assessment of goods as scrap or prime goods
The Commissioner's decision was challenged through an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal contended that the goods' description and value were misdeclared, justifying confiscation and penalty imposition. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner erred in not escalating the value and in finding no suppression or misdeclaration. The Tribunal noted that under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, when a written show-cause notice is not insisted upon, the department's notes become the charges against the assessees. The adjudicating authority must inform the noticee of these charges, record their submissions, and then give a finding.

Issue 3: Review of order under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962
The Tribunal reviewed the Commissioner's order as per the power vested under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was filed based on this review. The appeal sought confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties due to alleged misdeclaration and suppression of value. The Tribunal directed the department to provide a photocopy of relevant pages to the respondents for further study.

Issue 4: Allegations of misdeclaration and suppression of value
The appeal raised concerns about misdeclaration and suppression of value in the import of goods. The Revenue argued that the value of the goods was misdeclared, justifying confiscation and penalty imposition. The Commissioner's decision not to escalate the value and finding no suppression or misdeclaration was disputed by the Revenue.

Issue 5: Adjudication proceedings and charges against the assessees
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of informing the noticee of the charges against them and recording their submissions during adjudication proceedings. The notes contained proposals for enhancement of value, potentially leading to confiscation or penalty imposition. The respondents were granted the opportunity to study the materials produced by the department, highlighting the need for a fair and transparent adjudication process.