TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Entry No. 365754, dated 27-9-2002 for clearance of 200 Nos. of Cooler fans and 20 Nos. of Mother boards. The consignment was examined in presence of concerned Custom House Agent and independent witnesses. On examination, it was revealed that the consignment contained excess quantity of not only the declared goods but also huge quantity of undeclared goods. The undeclared goods consisted of Intel Desktop Boards, SD RAMs - Memory Cards of 128 MB and 256 MB. All these goods were seized under Mahazar dated 28-9-2002. The import documents indicated that the consignment was supplied by M/s. Guru Electronics Singapore (Pte.) Ltd. While the investigations were in progress, a letter was received from M/s. Guru Electronics Singapore (Pte) Ltd., S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Commissioner (Appeals) is a unilateral order which has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Department was not at all apprised of the appeal filed by the supplier, M/s. Guru Electronics Singapore (Pte) Ltd., Singapore. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any specific reason or justification for not putting the Department on notice. Breach of natural justice itself is a miscarriage of the justice and as such any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice will be void, as laid down in several judgments of the highest court of the land. Under the Customs Act, only the decisions or orders are alone appealable. Such decisions or order are made during the adjudication proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation. No formal order or decision was passed in the conventional sense and the communication to the supplier, by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) was executive in character. The Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in considering the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 of Customs Act, 1962, which relates to remission of duty on lost, destroyed or abandoned goods. There was neither loss nor destruction nor abandonment of the goods imported, and as such there is no justification at all for relying on the said provisions. The importer never gave up either the property or his right, with an intention of never claiming it again. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscussion in the said Order-in-Appeal, as to how the importer M/s. Suntech, Bangalore was concerned in the appeal filed by the supplier M/s. Guru Electronics, Singapore and as to what the submissions were made by the importer M/s. Suntech, Bangalore during the appeal proceedings. 5. Smt. Radha Arun, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata v. Grand Prime Ltd. reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.), wherein it was held in Para 8 that 'the Act does not contain any provision regarding re-export of goods. It gives power of confiscation of goods which are illegally imported and for various other, reasons enumerated in Section 111 of the Act.' She also relied on the decision of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time limitation for filing appeal expired on 19-1-2003." Shri Ravi Shankar objected to these facts mentioned in the appeal that he has mis-represented the fact before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and requested that the order may be passed by the Tribunal for expunging these remarks in the appeal of the Revenue. 7. Shri Ravi Shankar on behalf of the respondents pleaded that Section 128 of the Customs Act provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Customs Act by any officer of the rank lower than the Commissioner of Customs may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). Since, in this case, the order of rejecting export of goods is a decision, therefore the appeal lies to the Commissioner (Appeals). He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 20-11-2002 rejected the request with the remark that the request has been made subsequent to the detention and seizure of the subject goods. I find that the order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs is not a speaking order." When the Commissioner (Appeals) himself find that the order of the Joint Commissioner is not a speaking order and the goods have been subjected to seizure, it is necessary for him to get correct facts from the Customs and give them an appropriate opportunity to know the status of the case before passing any order. We find that in the decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by both the sides, adjudication proceedings were complete and thereafter only the parties have gone to the Court and the relief of re-expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
