Vip Zip Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. alongwith this appeal appellant filed an application no. 506/99 praying for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit. as per the impugned order a penalty of rs. 50,000 imposed by the adjudicating authority has been upheld while the issue relating to mis-declaration of the quantity and enhancement of the value of the goods imported were remitted for fresh adjudication. when issue as to whether the declared quantity of the goods imported and its value were correctly shown by the importer or not has been remanded to the adjudicating authority, prima facie the appellate authority could not have upheld the penalty imposed on the importer. in this view, prayer of the appellant to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit has much force.2. appellate authority while disposing of the appeal before it observed that the importer did not get sufficient opportunity to present its case in the adjudication proceedings. this shows that the primary authority passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice. an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice can be treated as nonest.3. since the order of the adjudicating authority cannot stand inasmuch as, it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and since the appellate authority remanded the entire issue for fresh adjudication, we feel that appeal can itself be disposed of at this stage. accordingly we heard ld. counsel representing the appellant and the ld. departmental representative. on the facts and circumstances of this case we feel that all aspects relating to the import with which we are concerned in this case has not been correctly appreciated by the adjudicating authority. so without expressing our view on merits which ld. counsel representing the appellant wants us to do, we direct adjudicating authority to proceed de novo for adjudication, in accordance with law and in compliance with principles of natural justice. the penalty which has been sustained by the appellate authority, namely the commissioner (appeals) is vacated, without prejudice to the adjudicating authority's right to impose the penalty, if law warrants such a imposition. since the matter is sufficiently old and the goods are under detention, we direct the adjudicating authority to pass final order, as stated above, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by him. in case he requires more time than the time fixed above, he must seek extension of time from this tribunal. in case, no extension is asked for and no order is passed by the adjudicating authority as directed above, the appellant should be allowed to clear the goods on payment of duty on the value shown in the invoice and the bill of entry.4. appeal is disposed of in the above terms. office will issue copy of this orders to the adjudicating officer viz. dy. commissioner, customs, air cargo complex, sahar intenational airport, sahar andheri (east), mumbai-400099 without any delay.

Judgment:
1. Alongwith this appeal appellant filed an application No. 506/99 praying for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit. As per the impugned order a penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed by the adjudicating authority has been upheld while the issue relating to mis-declaration of the quantity and enhancement of the value of the goods imported were remitted for fresh adjudication. When issue as to whether the declared quantity of the goods imported and its value were correctly shown by the importer or not has been remanded to the adjudicating authority, prima facie the appellate authority could not have upheld the penalty imposed on the importer. In this view, prayer of the appellant to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit has much force.

2. Appellate Authority while disposing of the appeal before it observed that the importer did not get sufficient opportunity to present its case in the adjudication proceedings. This shows that the primary authority passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice. An order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice can be treated as nonest.

3. Since the order of the adjudicating authority cannot stand inasmuch as, it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and since the Appellate Authority remanded the entire issue for fresh adjudication, we feel that appeal can itself be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly we heard Ld. Counsel representing the appellant and the Ld. Departmental Representative. On the facts and circumstances of this case we feel that all aspects relating to the import with which we are concerned in this case has not been correctly appreciated by the adjudicating authority. So without expressing our view on merits which ld. Counsel representing the appellant wants us to do, we direct adjudicating authority to proceed de novo for adjudication, in accordance with law and in compliance with principles of natural justice. The penalty which has been sustained by the Appellate Authority, namely the Commissioner (Appeals) is vacated, without prejudice to the adjudicating authority's right to impose the penalty, if law warrants such a imposition. Since the matter is sufficiently old and the goods are under detention, we direct the adjudicating authority to pass final order, as stated above, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by him. In case he requires more time than the time fixed above, he must seek extension of time from this Tribunal. In case, no extension is asked for and no order is passed by the adjudicating authority as directed above, the appellant should be allowed to clear the goods on payment of duty on the value shown in the invoice and the Bill of Entry.

4. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Office will issue copy of this orders to the adjudicating officer viz. Dy. Commissioner, Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar Intenational Airport, Sahar Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 without any delay.