Commissioner of Customs , Calcutta Vs. Hanuman Trading Corpn. & Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 3123-3124 of 1997
Petitioner: Commissioner of Customs , Calcutta
Respondent: Hanuman Trading Corpn. & Another
Apeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 3123-3124 of 1997
Judges: J.S. Verma, CJI & B.N. Kirpal , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 24, 1997
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Customs
Under invoiced value of imported goods found – Customs authori-ties imposing penalty and fine – On appeal , Tribunal allowing evidence/material to be placed before it for the first time and quashing orders of fine and penalty – Held that the course adopt-ed by Tribunal was not satisfactory . It should have remitted the matter , in case it was of opinion that opportunity should be given . Orders set-aside and matter remitted to Commissioner , Customs to decide a fresh . ( Paras 5 , 6 )
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. A total of 959.515 mts. of copper wire bars ( electrolytic grade ) at a total declared value of 5,08,58,131.05 CIF Calcutta was alleged to be grossly undervalued by the authority . The port of shipment of the goods as evident from the bills of entry was Rotterdam .
2 . Acting on information that the value of the goods was under invoiced and that benefit of Notification 203/92-Cus is not available to the goods inasmuch as the original licence-holder-VSP has availed of Modvat credit of duty on inputs used for manufacture of the export product , investigations were carried out by Customs Officers pursuant to which a show-cause notice dated 17-4-1995 was given to the respondents .
3 . The authorities concerned confiscated the goods and conse-quently a fine of Rs 3 crores in lieu of confiscation and penalty of Rs. 2 crore were imposed on the proprietor Navneet Kumar .
4 . An appeal was preferred to the Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned order . The Tribunal has set aside the order of confiscation and penalty and further directed release of the goods . This appeal is against that order .
5 . There is no controversy that the respondents did not avail of the opportunity before the authorities to adduce any evidence and it was only before the Tribunal that material was produced by the respondents/sole proprietor challenging confiscation and penalty . In the facts and circumstances of the case , we are satisfied that the course adopted by the Tribunal of permitting the respondents to adduce evidence before it for the first time and then in proceeding to decide the case on merits on that basis was not correct . If the Tribunal was of the view that a fresh opportunity was required to be given to the respondents to adduce evidence and show-cause in response to the notice given to the respondents , the appropriate course for adoption was to remit the matter to the Commissioner of Customs , Calcutta . For this reason alone , the Tribunal’s order must be set aside .
6 . Accordingly , the appeals are allowed . We remit the matter back to the Commissioner of Customs , Calcutta to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides . The appeals are allowed in these terms .
1. A total of 959.515 mts. of copper wire bars ( electrolytic grade ) at a total declared value of 5,08,58,131.05 CIF Calcutta was alleged to be grossly undervalued by the authority . The port of shipment of the goods as evident from the bills of entry was Rotterdam .
2 . Acting on information that the value of the goods was under invoiced and that benefit of Notification 203/92-Cus is not available to the goods inasmuch as the original licence-holder-VSP has availed of Modvat credit of duty on inputs used for manufacture of the export product , investigations were carried out by Customs Officers pursuant to which a show-cause notice dated 17-4-1995 was given to the respondents .
3 . The authorities concerned confiscated the goods and conse-quently a fine of Rs 3 crores in lieu of confiscation and penalty of Rs. 2 crore were imposed on the proprietor Navneet Kumar .
4 . An appeal was preferred to the Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned order . The Tribunal has set aside the order of confiscation and penalty and further directed release of the goods . This appeal is against that order .
5 . There is no controversy that the respondents did not avail of the opportunity before the authorities to adduce any evidence and it was only before the Tribunal that material was produced by the respondents/sole proprietor challenging confiscation and penalty . In the facts and circumstances of the case , we are satisfied that the course adopted by the Tribunal of permitting the respondents to adduce evidence before it for the first time and then in proceeding to decide the case on merits on that basis was not correct . If the Tribunal was of the view that a fresh opportunity was required to be given to the respondents to adduce evidence and show-cause in response to the notice given to the respondents , the appropriate course for adoption was to remit the matter to the Commissioner of Customs , Calcutta . For this reason alone , the Tribunal’s order must be set aside .
6 . Accordingly , the appeals are allowed . We remit the matter back to the Commissioner of Customs , Calcutta to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides . The appeals are allowed in these terms .
