Page 160 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

382 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

and perused the records. We find that though the appellant have waived the
Show Cause Notice, however, the appellant was not put to notice the intention of
the revenue for confiscation of the goods. We also find that due to this reason the
appellant could not make any defence as regard confiscation of the goods which
is consequential to alleged misdeclaration of the value of imported goods. In the-
se circumstances the original order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is ex
parte order without having on record any representation in defence of the appel-
lant. Therefore, we are of the view that since the appellant have raised various
grounds and the Adjudicating Authority had no occasion to consider the sub-
mission now made before Commissioner (Appeals) as well as before this Tribu-
nal, the matter needs to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly
we set aside the impugned order except the reduction of redemption fine.
7. All the issues are kept open, the appeal is allowed by way of remand
to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 20-12-2019)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 382 (Tri. - Chennai)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
[COURT NO. III]
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J) and Shri P. Venkata Subba Rao,
Member (T)
VAS NOORULLAH & CO.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI
Final Order No. 41246/2019, dated 1-11-2019 in Appeal No. C/40133/2013-DB
Confiscation of exported goods - Two tests conducted on sample of
exported goods confirmed that it is not Nubuck Leather at all, process of snuff-
ing essential for making nubuck leather having not been undertaken - Confis-
cation of goods for improper export under Sections 113(i) and 113(ia) of Cus-
toms Act, 1962 justified in view of misdeclaration of the goods in the shipping
bill by the appellant - Goods having been already exported, redemption fine
and penalty imposed upheld - Sections 114 and 125 of Customs Act, 1962.
[paras 5, 6]
Appeal rejected
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
D.G.F.T. Public Notice Nos. 92-97, dated 27-5-1992 ............................................................................. [Para 2]
D.G.F.T. Public Notice No. 3 ETC/27-5-1992 ........................................................................................ [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri G. Derricksam, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC (AR), for the Respondent.
[Order per : P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (T)]. - This appeal is filed
against OIA No. C. Cus. No. 1352/2012, dated 29-11-2012.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  160