2014 (10) TMI 966 - AT - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - the appellants were not supplied the relied upon documents the cross examination was not conducted and most of the written submissions were even not referred in the impugned order - penalty u/s 112(a) and 114A of CA 1962 - Held that - the relied upon documents were not supplied to the appellants except to Shri Kejal Mehta. The demand was confirmed against M/s. Samudri International M/s Mayur enterprises and M/s Madhu Enterprises on the basis of statements of Shri Bhumish Shah and Shri kejal Mehta. Shri Alpesh Shah is the proprietor of M/s Samudri International and Bhupendra Ravani is the proprietor of M/s Mayur Enterprises and M/s Madhu Enterprises. It is very surprising that the statements of persons against whom the custom duty demand was confirmed were never recorded even the said importers were not made confronted with the statements of Shri Bhumish Shah and Shri Kejal Mehta. In such a situation it becomes necessary that the cross examination must be granted. There is gross violation of principle of natural justice in passing the adjudicating order therefore such order deserves to be set aside and remanded - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Undervaluation of imported goods leading to differential custom duty, penalties, interest, and confiscation.
2. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.

Issue 1: Undervaluation of imported goods:
The appellants, engaged in importing spices, were found to have undervalued the imported goods based on intelligence received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The investigation involved searching various premises and recovering incriminating documents. Show cause notices were issued proposing demands for differential custom duty, confiscation of undervalued goods, and penalties on importers and related individuals. The Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, demanded interest on short-paid duty, and imposed redemption fines. The appellants challenged this decision, alleging undervaluation was not proven adequately.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a):
The Ld. Commissioner imposed penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the appellants and related individuals. The appellants contested these penalties, claiming violations of natural justice in the adjudication process. The Ld. Counsels argued that the penalties were based on insufficient evidence and without proper consideration of submissions. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the adjudication process, including the lack of supplying relied-upon documents and conducting cross-examinations, leading to a violation of natural justice.

Issue 3: Violation of principles of natural justice:
The Tribunal found significant lapses in the adjudication process, indicating a gross violation of natural justice principles. The failure to supply relied-upon documents, conduct cross-examinations, and consider written submissions properly undermined the fairness of the proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter, directing the adjudicating authority to consider all submissions, provide necessary documents, grant personal hearings, and complete the proceedings within a specified timeframe. All issues were kept open for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the undervaluation of imported goods, the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, and the violation of natural justice principles in the adjudication process. The decision to set aside the order and remand the matter highlighted the importance of fair procedures and thorough consideration of all relevant aspects in customs cases.