BANSAL INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against Order -in -Original No. 222/2001 -CAU dated 28.12.2001 (issued from File No. S8/Misc./183/2001 Gr.7A) passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport), Chennai in de novo proceedings arising out of this Hon'ble Tribunal's Final Order No. 1721/2001 dated 3.10.2001 in Appeal No. C/Appl/342/2001 in the matter of M/s. Bansal Industries, New Delhi.

(2.) This is the second round of litigation. In the first round the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) had passed Order -in -Original No, 142/2001 -CAU dated 29.8.2001 and ordered enhancement of value on Tin Free Sheets (TFS) to US 442/MT and Tin Plates (TP) at US 550/MT in terms of Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and demanded duty short levy of Rs. 7,50,223 under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority also ordered confiscation of the goods and offered its redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the appellant herein filed an appeal (C/Appl/343/01) alongwith an application for waiver of pre -deposit and stay of the recovery of the amount and also prayed for out of turn hearing in the facts and circumstances of the case. This Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1721/2001 dated 3.10.2001 set aside the adjudication order passed bytheLd. Commissioner with the direction that the case should be readjudicated in the light of the observations made by this Hon'ble Tribunal and it was specifically observed that the Ld. Commissioner ought to have given reasons why such experts opinions was not acceptable to him. It was however open to the Commissioner to have called the experts for cross -examination or to elicit further details from them. It was also open to the Commissioner to have called upon these experts to examine the consignment and also take samples for tests so that if there was any doubt lingering in the mind of the Commissioner or the NML scientists, the same could have been sorted out. The Hon'ble Tribunal had further observed that it is for the Commissioner to have got it clarified from either side to arrive at the correct conclusion as to what the goods are. It was specifically observed by the Tribunal that it was not open to the Commissioner to come to his own conclusion on the product. The Tribunal had also directed that the 3rd party opinion should be obtained to set the controversy at rest. It was also observed by the Tribunal that such a course would have been a correct course of action as there would have been transparency in the proceedings and there would not have been charge of violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal thus concluded with the direction that the Ld. Commissioner should call upon the importer's experts to examine the goods and test the same and obtain their fresh opinion so that the opinion given by the importer's experts becomes conclusive in nature and the doubts raised by the Commissioner that the consignment has not been examined visually would be cleared. In the facts and circumstances of this case the Tribunal had directed that the de novo proceedings should be concluded within two months from the date of receipt of this order.