2001 (7) TMI 796 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
Typographical mistake in the order regarding the section for confiscation of goods.

Analysis:
1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appeal was filed against an order confiscating exported goods with a redemption fine and penalty imposed. The appellants challenged the validity of the order, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The appellants were not provided with copies of relied-upon documents to prepare an effective reply. The Deputy Commissioner's response to their request for documents was deemed inadequate. The appellants were not given a proper opportunity to be heard, leading to a lack of fairness in the proceedings. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, emphasizing the importance of providing necessary documents and a fair hearing. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was directed for a fresh decision after affording the appellants a proper opportunity of hearing.

2. Typographical Mistake in the Order:
Another issue raised was a typographical error in the order regarding the section for confiscation of goods. While the show cause notice mentioned one section, the order cited a different section. The appellants contended that this mistake affected the proceedings. However, the Tribunal held that this error was merely typographical and did not prejudice the appellants or invalidate the proceedings. It was clarified that mentioning the wrong section does not render the adjudication void ab initio. Therefore, this argument was not accepted, and the Tribunal upheld the validity of the proceedings despite the typographical mistake.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order due to the violation of natural justice principles. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The typographical error regarding the section for confiscation of goods was deemed insignificant and did not impact the overall validity of the proceedings. The appellants were instructed to cooperate in the expedited resolution of the case upon remand.