CESTAT Expresses Anguish Over Disrespectful Language in Appeal Memorandum, Warns Against Derogatory Pleadings
Pranav B Prem
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has strongly expressed its disapproval over the usage of disrespectful and derogatory language in an appeal memorandum filed by Shanti Rayons India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal, cautioned against such improper pleadings, emphasizing that expressions of disrespect or unsolicited advice have no place in legal pleadings or memoranda submitted before adjudicating authorities.
The appellant, Shanti Rayons India Pvt. Ltd., had imported 18292.2 kgs of "100% Rayon Filament Yarn Bright Raw White on cake 120D/30 Finance Act, 1994 Grade" from M/s. Hitansh Global Viscose P. Ltd., Singapore. Claiming exemption from payment of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) at the rate of USD 4.77 per kg under S. No. 7 of Notification No. 81/2009-Cus dated 13.07.2009, the appellant declared the imported goods accordingly. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Tuticorin, alleged that the importer was evading ADD by declaring a rate less than the benchmark rate of USD 5.20 per kg prescribed under S. No. 25 of the same notification. Investigations revealed that while the exporter-supplier was from Singapore, the actual manufacturer of the goods was from China, disqualifying the importer from claiming the reduced ADD rate of USD 4.77 per kg.
Consequently, the adjudicating authority re-determined the ADD rate to USD 5.20 per kg, demanded differential ADD of ₹7,17,199/- along with applicable interest, and imposed a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, a redemption fine of ₹50,000/- was levied in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.
One of the main grounds raised by the appellant was that the demand pertained to the pre-self-assessment regime, where assessment was the responsibility of the proper officer and any error could not be attributed to the importer. The appellant also contended that the show cause notice was time-barred as it was issued without invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, the appellant argued that the goods, having been cleared and not physically available, could not be confiscated, and the imposition of redemption fine was erroneous.
The Tribunal, however, found no merit in these contentions. It held that the Supreme Court in Canon India’s case had clarified the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices, thereby rejecting the appellant's jurisdictional challenge. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had admitted in their statement that the goods were manufactured in China and exported via Singapore, rendering the claimed concessional ADD rate inapplicable. This omission amounted to suppression of facts and misrepresentation, justifying the invocation of the extended limitation period and the re-determination of ADD.
Regarding the redemption fine, the Tribunal noted that since the goods were released against a bond, the imposition of such fine was legally sustainable, as held by the Supreme Court in Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2000 (115) ELT 278 (SC)]
The Tribunal also took strong exception to the language used in the appeal memorandum. The appellant had questioned the competence and knowledge of the First Appellate Authority, stating that the authority lacked even the rudimentary knowledge of customs law. The Tribunal remarked that such disrespectful language was unacceptable in legal pleadings. Citing Justice Robert H. Jackson of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Latin maxim Nemo judex in causa sua, the Tribunal stressed that propriety and restraint were essential while drafting pleadings. It further referred to a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to underline the ethical duties of advocates and litigants to maintain dignity and respect towards judicial authorities.
Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the lower authority’s order was reasonable and legally proper. Accordingly, it upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the demand for differential ADD, interest, penalty, and redemption fine imposed on the appellant.
Appearance
Counsel For Appellant: J. Shankarraman
Counsel For Respondent: Sanjay Kakkar
Cause Title: Shanti Rayons India Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs
Case No: Customs Appeal No. 42629 of 2014
Coram: Hon’ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar [Member (Technical)]
[Read/Download order]
