2010 (3) TMI 957 - HC - Customs

Restoration of appeal - confiscation - redemption fine - Held that - the Tribunal has relied upon the order of this Court in the appellants own case UOI. Versus SIR HURKISONDAS NUROTTAM HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE 2005 (4) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY which is subject matter of dispute before us, in which the Bombay High Court has held that duty can be demanded only if upon confiscation of goods, option to redeem is exercised - the observation made by this Court in the case was prima facie; and no conclusive finding was recorded. Having made this position clear and looking to the consensus between both parties that impugned order needs to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for hearing afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Interpretation of principles of natural justice in customs cases
- Application of res judicata in customs duty matters
- Validity of observations made by the High Court in a previous order

Interpretation of principles of natural justice in customs cases:
The appeal was directed against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that denial of principles of natural justice had been dealt with in their findings on common issues. Reference was made to a decision by the Madras High Court and a past decision by the Bombay High Court in the Wockhardt case. The Tribunal held that duty could be demanded only if the option to redeem goods was exercised upon confiscation. The Tribunal concluded that if the appellants chose not to exercise their option, duty could not be demanded. The appellant's counsel argued that a previous order of the High Court was not conclusive and needed further consideration.

Application of res judicata in customs duty matters:
The Tribunal relied on a previous High Court order, stating that it operated as res judicata between the parties since it was not challenged by the Revenue in a higher court. The appellant's counsel contended that the observation in the previous order was made prima facie and was not conclusive. The respondent's counsel supported the Tribunal's findings but could not fully justify the binding nature of the previous High Court order.

Validity of observations made by the High Court in a previous order:
The High Court clarified that the observation made in the previous order was prima facie and not a conclusive finding. Both parties agreed that the impugned order needed to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on its own merits following principles of natural justice within six months. The appeal was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.