TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided in appeal because the order did not give the reasons for the order - The issue of a reasoned order got delayed because the documents were withdrawn for investigation by DRI - It was the result of the fraudulent action of the appellant in giving fraudulent description of goods on the Bill of Entry. Whether an attempt of revoke would pass a test of legal propriety as mentioned in Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 – Held that:- New facts implying fraud were noticed even after order was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) - the new facts should have been taken into account by the Tribunal for condoning the delay in filing appeal - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Versus CANDID ENTERPRISES [2001 (3) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] – the Argument of the assesse was not maintainable under Section 129D - The fact that the goods were not examined properly before passing the order cannot be considered as a new fact - only the facts that came out of fresh examination are new facts – Decided against Assesses. - C/353/2009 - A-206/KOL/2011(PB) - Dated:- 28-6-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal and Mathew John, JJ. Shri P.C. Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Shovender Banerjee, Spl. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the basis of examination report, the Bill of Entry was assessed by enhancing the value of consignment. The goods were also confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the reason that import licence required for importing old and used goods was not produced and for the reason that the value was found to be mis-declared. The goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine under Section 125 and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on 8-9-2008. This order was made on file just showing the enhanced value and the fine and penalty to be paid. The enhanced value, fine and penalty were orally communicated to the Appellant. Here it is pertinent to mention that such a practice is common because it is administratively not feasible to issue long orders on assessment of each and every disputed Bill of Entry. No reasons were recorded or communicated to the party or to the Commissioner, who is a reviewing authority for such orders under section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants agreed with the proposed value and assessment of Bill of Entry and paid the duty, redemption fine, and penalty. On 11-9-2008, that is after pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cription and quantities of the goods, which variation could not have been found on strip opening of bales. It is on this discovery by DRI that the reviewing authority has now sought re-adjudication of the cases. Since fresh facts come to the notice after adjudication of the case, these irregularities/misdeclaration cannot be considered in appeal. 9. The matter to be decided in this proceeding is what is the date of communication specified in Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, in the facts of this case, whether it is 11-9-2008 or 24-2-2009. We do agree with the contention of the learned Advocate for the Revenue that decision in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) is not relevant to the facts of this case as the same dealt with provisions, as it stood at the relevant time for deciding that case, wherein the relevant date was date of order as compared to the present position wherein date of communication of the order is relevant. 10. The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that when DRI started investigation on 11-9-2008 and asked to supply the assessment of Bill of Entry from the Commissioner hence, the order has been communicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors. [2003 (8) SCC 319]. 37. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702, Lord Denning observed at pages 712 713, No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
