9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of rules of natural justice in passing the impugned order imposing penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Act. Analysis: The appeal challenged the correctness of the impugned order on the grounds of violating natural justice as no show cause notice was served on the appellant, and no personal hearing was afforded by the Commissioner of Customs. The Counsel emphasized a letter sent to the Commissioner of Customs as evidence of lack of notice. However, the Respondent contended that show cause notices and personal hearing notices were sent multiple times but were undelivered, supported by photocopies of speed post reports. The case involved illegal export of garments through misdeclaration, with fraudulent withdrawal of drawback amounts totaling Rs. 3,87,12,610. Fictitious firms were used for export, none of which existed upon investigation. The appellant was found to be an active associate in the fraudulent activities, providing incorrect addresses to avoid proceedings. The appellant's claim of not receiving show cause notices was refuted by evidence of multiple attempts to deliver notices, all returned due to incorrect addresses provided by the appellant. The appellant's Counsel referred to a letter alleging non-receipt of show cause notices, but failed to disclose the source of this information. The appellant himself admitted receiving the impugned order from a co-noticee without revealing the co-noticee's identity. The Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly evaded participation in the proceedings, following the fraudulent actions of the main perpetrator. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's deliberate avoidance of the proceedings barred him from claiming a violation of natural justice, upholding the penalty imposed due to the substantial drawback amount involved. In the final decision, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal as lacking merit. The judgment emphasized that the appellant's actions, including providing false addresses and avoiding participation in the proceedings, prevented him from claiming a violation of natural justice. The penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed appropriate given the significant amount of drawback involved, especially since the Counsel did not challenge the allegations on merits during the proceedings.
|
