COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA Vs. AJAY AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Shri K.P. Singh, learned Departmental Representative (SDR) arguing on behalf of the Department challenges the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Authority on the ground that the said order merely quotes several case laws but does not discuss the facts of the present case and how those case laws are applicable to the present case. Moreover, he states that the impugned PVC resin seized by the Customs Authorities are in large quantity and proved to be of Korean origin. The claimant of the goods Shri Nadeem Akhtar stated that he has purchased the impugned goods from M/s. Balaji Plastics of Delhi, but enquiry with M/s. Balaji Plastics did not connect the impugned goods with the Bill of Entry produced by M/s. Balaji Plastic as the batch numbers are different. Shri K.P. Singh, learned Departmental Representative (SDR) states that nothing of these details have been discussed by the lower appellate Authority while passing the impugned order. In reply Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the Respondents supports the impugned order on the ground that the impugned goods are freely importable. He also states that these goods are regularly imported by M/s. Jewel Polymers who have sold the same to M/s. Balaji Plastics and that it is possible that the impugned goods are related to some earlier imports covered by different Bills of Entries. He states that a plea was made before the original Authority to further enquire the matter from M/s. Jewel Polymers but the same has not been done to come to the right conclusion.

(2.) AFTER hearing both the sides, I find that the lower appellate Authority has merely recorded the gist of few case laws and then he has abruptly come to the conclusion saying ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable to the present proceedings and has then set aside the order -in -original. He has obviously not dealt with the detailed facts of the case and therefore his order cannot be said to be a speaking order nor can it be sustained. Hence the impugned order is set aside.

(3.) HOWEVER , taking into account the submissions made by both the sides, it is apparent that the Respondents should be given another opportunity to establish with reference to correct import documents as to whether the impugned goods are relatable to any of the earlier imports. For that limited purpose, the matter is remanded to the original Authority for fresh decision. The original Authority will be at liberty to obtain fresh evidence from M/s. Jewel Polymers to come to a definite conclusion as to whether the impugned goods are imported by them as claimed by the Respondents and whether the batch No. tallies with any of the earlier imports made by them.