2006 (7) TMI 79 - HC - Customs

Demand alleged that appellant can t fulfill the export obligation and accordingly adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs.2 crore on him For hearing appeal furnish of bank guarantee is a pre-condition Writ petition allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of certiorari sought to quash direction for bank guarantee.
2. Export obligation non-fulfillment leading to penalty imposition.
3. Appeal remanded for fresh hearing and deposit condition.
4. Hearing adjournment due to security reasons.
5. Petitioner denied a reasonable hearing before bank guarantee demand.
6. Violation of principles of natural justice alleged.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash a direction for a bank guarantee of Rs. 30.00 lac as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. The petitioner contended that the export obligation was not fulfilled, resulting in a penalty imposition of Rs. 2.00 crore by the adjudicating authority.

2. The appellate committee remanded the matter for a fresh hearing and directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the penalty amount by cash or bank guarantee. A writ petition was filed against this order, and the High Court directed a hearing without insisting on the penalty deposit.

3. The petitioner faced challenges in attending the hearing due to security reasons related to the visit of the President of the United States. Despite efforts to reschedule, the petitioner was directed to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 30.00 lac, leading to further communication discrepancies and adjournment requests.

4. The petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice principles, arguing that the demand for a bank guarantee was routine and not justified. Legal precedents were cited to support the petitioner's contention regarding the necessity of a fair inquiry before ordering pre-deposit amounts.

5. The respondents, represented by Senior Counsel, contended that a hearing would be granted before deciding on the waiver of pre-deposit or bank guarantee. References to legal cases were made to justify the imposition of conditions and seeking a bank guarantee.

6. The High Court found that the petitioner was denied a fair hearing regarding the pre-deposit condition, attributing the denial to factors imputable to the respondents. The court emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable hearing before directing the petitioner to make a pre-deposit or furnish a bank guarantee.

7. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the directions for a bank guarantee without a prior hearing. It directed the respondents to provide a hearing on the waiver of pre-deposit before deciding on the appeal, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and principles of natural justice.