1. M/s. Hi-Tron Electronics, Moradabad have filed an appeal being aggrieved from order passed by Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Bombay.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported electronic components for T.V. Receiver Sets vide Bill of Entry No.A-10541/8 dated 23-9-1986 and claimed clearance under O.G.L. Appendix 6(1) of AM 1985-86 Policy. On scrutiny and examination it was observed that the goods imported were in the form of mounted/populated PCBs for V.C.R. and not CTV. The goods were thoroughly examined and samples drawn for inspection were shown to Mr. KJ. Shastri, Sr. Design Executive from NELCO and on inspection of samples it was observed that the goods imported were PCB assemblies for VCR minus the power supply, T.D.M. and Chassis component and the value of these goods were ascertained @ Rs. 1,320/- CIF per piece. Thus the appellant's declaration that these were components of RTV was totally wrong and there was mis-declaration in respect of description as well as value aspect. The items being electronic assemblies, the clearance required a valid import licence in terms of Appendix 3A Sr. No. 610 of AM 85-88 Policy and in the absence of valid licence covering the consignment an offence under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was attracted.
The appellant vide their letter dated 27-10-1986 waived the issue of show cause notice and had requested for personal hearing. The adjudicating authority had granted a personal hearing and the value of 100 sets had been declared in the Bill of Entry as Rs. 16,451/1 i.e.
each piece at Rs. 164.51 only and the Ld. Collector was of the view that the assessment of the components in SKD form should be approximately 95 US $ FOB for Rs. 1,100/-and the assessment was based on the existing prices prevailing in the international market. He had held that" the imported goods were assemblies of VCR and had assessed its value at Rs. 1,20,880/-. The Ld. Collector had confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs-Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. However, he had allowed an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
He had also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 15.000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Shri B.B. Gujral, the Ld. Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the appeal memo.
He has briefly stated the facts of the case and has stated that the appellant is having necessary approval from the office of the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries, New Delhi for the manufacture of 20,000 colour TV Receiver Sets. He has also stated that the appellant is duly registered with the Director of Industries as industrial unit. He states that the appellant's unit is an actual user of the component raw materials in accordance with Notification No.232/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1983 subsequently amended by Notification No.285/83-Cus., dated 3-10-1983; and the appellant is entitled to the facility of concessional rate of duty in terms of the above notification. He states that the appellant had also filed an application for allotment of the importer code number. Shri Gujral further states that the appellant had waived the issue of show cause notice and has referred to a letter dated 15-11-1986 written by P.Choitharam Limited where the suppliers had mentioned that by mistake the consignment was sent to the appellants and the sales pertained to M/s. Polestar Electronics (P) Ltd., Bombay. Shri Gujral states that the Revenue authorities have adopted the value to a very high figure and the Customs Valuation Rules have been ignored by the adjudicating authority. He has referred to the order-in-original and further states that the inspection was done by Shri K J. Shastri - an Engineer of M/s.
NELCO and M/s. NELCO do not manufacture VCRs and manufactures only TVs.
He also states that similar goods were imported by M/s. Polestar Electronics (P) Ltd. and 100 pieces were assessed at Rs. 15.900/- and has referred to page 16 of the paper book i.e. Bill of Entry of M/s.
Polestar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. He states that there was denial of principles of natural justice and a show cause notice should have been issued by the adjudicating authority and the appellant was not aware as to the dispute on valuation. He has pleaded that in case the Tribunal remands the matter to the adjudicating authority, the Tribunal may give a direction to the adjudicating authority for the issue of a fresh show cause notice and copies of the evidence on which the Revenue had based its order should also be supplied to him. He further states that his appeal may be accepted.
4. Shri L.C. Chakravarti, the Ld. J.D.R., who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, very much objects to the remanding of the matter and the issue of fresh show cause notice. He states that there is no question of issue of a fresh show cause notice as the appellant had waived the right of issue of a show cause notice on his own and at this stage he cannot ask for the issue of the show cause notice. He further states that the appellant has incorporated a large number of documents as fresh evidence in his paper book and states that there is no application for granting necessary permission for filing of the additional evidence and the Tribunal should not place any reliance on the documents referred to by Shri Gujral in his arguments. In particular, he has referred to the letter of M/s. P. Choithram Limited dated 15-11-1986 which appears on page 12 of the paper book. He states that the adjudication order is dated 13-11-1986 whereas the supplier's letter is dated 15-11-1986 and the same is after the adjudication. He has pleaded that the order passed by the lower authority is correct in law and has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal..
5. Shri B.B. Gujral, the Ld. Advocate, in reply states that his oral request for the admission of documents maybe recorded and has also requested that since the goods are with the Customs Authorities, in case the Tribunal remands the matter, then a time limit should be set out for the re-adjudication of the matter as the goods are likely to be damaged.
6. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Undoubtedly, the appellant had waived the right of the issue of show cause notice vide his letter dated 27-10-1986 as mentioned by the adjudicating authority in his order and the appellant had requested for personal hearing. We further feel that the adjudicating authority was of the view that there was violation of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. Probably the appellant was not confronted by the adjudicating authority as for enhancing the valuation of the goods. Undoubtedly, the documents incorporated in the paper book are in the nature of fresh evidence and there is no application for grant of necessary permission for the admission of these documents though Shri Gujral, the Ld. Advocate, had made an oral request for the admission of this evidence after the conclusion of his arguments. We feel that the principles of natural justice require that the Revenue authorities should have confronted the appellant with the material available for enhancing the value. Accordingly, we hold that there is denial of principles of natural justice. We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Ld. Collector for re-adjudication in accordance with law. We further direct that the adjudicating authority will supply the copies of the evidence on which the Revenue wants to rely within one month of the receipt of this order and we further direct that the respondent will re-adjudicate the matter within three months from the date of the receipt of this order after granting personal hearing to the appellants.