Page 224 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

614 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 614 (Tri. - Bang.)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
[COURT NO. I]
Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J)
V.V. MINERAL
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN
Final Order No. 21188/2019, dated 28-11-2019 in Application No. C/Early Hear-
ing/20804/2019 in Appeal No. C/20994/2019-SM
Adjudication - Natural justice - Proper hearing, absence of - Show
cause notice issued on 26-7-2019 proposing confiscation of goods, provided 30
days time to file reply - However, impugned order of absolute confiscation
passed on next day itself i.e. 27-7-2019 without affording opportunity of filing
reply to show cause notice to assessee - HELD : Opportunity of proper hearing
ought to be accorded to assessee against whom order of absolute confiscation
passed on next day of issue of show cause notice and without taking proper
reply to show cause notice - Manner and speed with which impugned order
passed by Commissioner, in complete violation of principles of natural justice
- Impugned order not sustainable in law - Article 226 of Constitution of India.
[paras 7.1, 8]
EXIM - Export of Minerals, Garnet - Pre-export restrictions/obligations
- Confiscation of goods for (1) inability to produce certificate of legally mined
minerals from concerned District Collector/transport permits from District au-
thorities and (2) goods being prohibited on account of restriction imposed by
Trade Facility circular issued by Commissioner of Customs as well as instruc-
tions issued by Government of Tamil Nadu in 2013 - HELD : Plethora of doc-
uments produced by assessee to show that impugned goods, legally mined
minerals, purchased from mining licence holder in Andhra Pradesh and
transport permits issued by Department of Mines & Geology of State of An-
dhra Pradesh - Certificate of legally mined minerals from concerned District
Collector of Tamil Nadu, not required where impugned minerals have been
legally mined in State of Andhra Pradesh - Also, at time of filing of shipping
bills, Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, Trade Facility Notice No. 13/2016,
dated 22-12-2016, was not in existence - Further, local mining authorities per-
mit not required for goods moved under provisions of Customs Act - Also, as
per policy prevalent during relevant time, natural garnet was freely exportable
and importable without any restriction - Provisions of Customs Act, not violat-
ed - Impugned order not sustainable and set aside - Customs Authorities, Co-
chin directed to release impugned goods as same cannot be exported in view
of DGFT Notification No. 26/2015-20 - Sections 110 and 112 of Customs Act,
1962. - Once the goods are found to be not prohibited, then it is mandatory for the Cus-
toms authorities to release the same on payment of redemption fine if there is a violation
of any conditions prescribed by any other law in force. [paras 7.2, 7.3, 8]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Chellapalam Manivannan v. Jt. Secretary, Min. of Finance (DOR)
— 2018 (361) E.L.T. 287 (Mad.) — Referred ................................................................................. [Para 6]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  224