ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of predeposit of balance duty of Rs. 18,45,157/- (out of the total duty demand of Rs. 26,95,157/- confirmed against M/s. Harsh International, Rs. 8,50,000/- has been deposited) and penalty equal to duty imposed upon them and penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on Shri Haresh Kumar P. Sheth who is the Constituted Attorney of M/s. Harsh International and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. ICC Wordlwide Courier, we found that it was possible to decide the appeals themselves as the grievance of the appellants is that of contravention of the principles of natural justice, in as much as, in spite of repeated request, expert’s opinion on valuation of goods was not supplied to the appellants.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.2.98, on the basis of an intelligence gathered, the officers of the Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) Commissionerate of Customs, Mumbai seized incriminating documents from the office premises of M/s. Harsh International. In a follow-up action thereafter, two cardboard boxes were brought from the Courier Cell, C.S.I. Airport, Mumbai to the office of the Air Intelligence Unit in the said Airport. An examination of the boxes showed that they contained items such as Metal Beads, Metal Springs, Corrugated Silver Beads, Transparent Glass Beads, Metal Pins etc. On inquiry with Shri Haresh Kumar Sheth, it was revealed that he had no legal documents for the import of these commercial goods. He further indulged in under valuation of the goods for the purpose of evasion of customs duty payable thereon. Thereafter the value of the seized goods was certified at Rs. 35,000/- approximately by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on 25.2.1998. Prior to that Shri Haresh Kumar P. Sheth’s statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, (on 9th February 1998) in which he stated that the value of the goods would be approximately Rs. 3000/- per kg. Further statement of applicants were also recorded. On the basis of the investigation it transpired that M/s. Harsh International had imported restricted item i.e. assorted beads from February 1997 to February 1998 from M/s. Jamsons International Trading, New York. M/s. ICC Worldwide and cleared the same by misdeclaring the items as sample and under valued the same. Show cause notice dt. 4.8.1998 was issued proposing confiscation of the goods covered by the present consignment, proposing loading of the assessable value of assorted beads imported during the period February 1997 to February 1998 at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per kg., proposing recovery of customs duty not levied/short levied on assorted beads during the above mentioned period amounting to Rs. 26,95,156 together with interest with and proposing imposition of penalty on all three appellants. The notice was adjudicated by the present impugned order, confirming the demand and imposing penalties as set out in the order; hence these appeals.
3. We have heard both sides. We note that the grievance of the appellants is that the certificate dt. 25.2.98 by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner fixing the valuation of the goods as Rs. 3000/- per kg. which has been adopted for the imports during the period February 1997 to February 1998 was not supplied in spite of request made right from 1999 itself, although the copies of the relied upon documents as stated in the notice, were furnished. As regards the statement of Haresh Kumar P. Sheth, it is pointed out that the statements of Shri Haresh Kumar Sheth were retracted and our attention is drawn to the retraction. In these circumstances we are of the view that the appellant contention regarding breach of the principles of natural justice for failure to supply the documents on the basis of which the valuation has been arrived at in the impugned order is well founded. We also note that duty amount of amount one third stands paid on goods imported in February 1998 which were seized, by the Customs authorities and have been cleared by the appellants. For violation of principles of natural justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision after furnishing the appellants copy of the certificate dt. 9.2.98 on the valuation of the imported beads. Thereafter orders shall be passed as soon as possible after extending reasonable opportunities to the appellant. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand. The Commissioner shall deal with the appellants request for cross examination of the concerned officers, who had given report on the valuation of the goods.
(Pronounced in Court)