TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporation. On the basis of the e-mail correspondences and statements recorded during the course of investigation charges of under valuation and misdeclaration of quantity made against the present appellants. Such cases were the evidences that are being relied upon need to be established in the adjudication proceedings in terms of Section 138B and 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. In such case where the evidences relied upon by the revenue are not direct but have been recovered during the investigations against some party, in present case M/s SGS Sales Corporation, the relevance of personal hearing in the adjudication proceedings increase many fold. Since the order has been passed without hearing the appellants in the facts and circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2 By the impugned order Commissioner held as follows: a. Order No 115 dated 29.07.2009 i) I order to reject the declared assessable value of ₹ 95,77,590/- in respect of the 7 consignments under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and the revised assessable value of ₹ 4,15,28,938/- under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 shall be adopted in respect of aforementioned consignments for the purpose of customs assessment. ii) I confirm the demand of duty ₹ 1,26,31,043/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Six Lakhs Thirty One Thousand and Forty Three only) along with interest as applicable under proviso to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,444/- (Rupees Nine Crore Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Four only) along with interest as applicable under proviso to Section 28(1) and Section 28AB respectively of the Customs Act, 1962. iii) I order confiscation of the 54 consignments of MDF with Veneer Face, totally valued at ₹ 29,35,65,190/- under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give the option to the importer redeem the same on payment of redemption fin of ₹ 5,88,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Eighty Eight Lakhs Only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 iv) I impose a penalty of ₹ 9,16,73,444/- (Rupees Nine Crore Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Four on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plier had supplied several consignments to the appellants at value much higher that was declared by them for clearance of the said goods. Statement of Director and Partners of Appellant 2 and 4 were recorded under Section 108. In their statements they admitted undervaluation of goods and also furnished incriminating information regarding the quantity of goods imported. In the B/E, though the length breadth of each board was stated in feet, the total volume of the imported goods deliberately indicated in m 3 . The thickness of boards though not declared was admitted by them to be 2.5 mm. Also they admitted that at their instance the thickness of the boards was deliberately not shown by the supplier on the invoices. Statements of partner in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter the order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 3.3 Arguing for the revenue the learned Authorized Representative, while reiterating the findings in the order submitted that sufficient opportunities were given to the appellants to present their case by the adjudicating authority. However appellants have themselves chosen to abstain from the hearing. Since appellants have abstained themselves from hearings they cannot complain about violation of principles of natural justice. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with submissions made in appeals and during the course of arguments of appeals. 4.2 In order No 115 date dated 29.07.2009, in para 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantity made against the present appellants. In our view in such cases were the evidences that are being relied upon need to be established in the adjudication proceedings in terms of Section 138B and 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. In such case where the evidences relied upon by the revenue are not direct but have been recovered during the investigations against some party, in present case M/s SGS Sales Corporation, the relevance of personal hearing in the adjudication proceedings increase many fold. Since the order has been passed without hearing the appellants in the facts and circumstances of these cases we are constrained to observe that orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 4.5 Since w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|