2010 (10) TMI 1074 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.
2. Negation of natural justice by the adjudicating authority.
3. Non-supply of documents.
4. Denial of cross-examination.
5. Non-supply of original documents.
6. Non-consideration of submissions and documents.
7. Joint and several liability.

Summary:

1. Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of Recovery:
The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning duty and penalty amounts. The Commissioner of Customs fixed "joint and several liability" on Vision Inc, R.A. Overseas, and other exporters for the recovery of drawback amounts and imposed penalties u/s 114 of the Customs Act.

2. Negation of Natural Justice:
The appellants argued that the adjudicating authority violated natural justice. The Tribunal concluded that the case required remand to the adjudicating authority due to these violations.

3. Non-supply of Documents:
The appellants contended that crucial documents, both relied upon and non-relied upon, were not supplied by the adjudicating authority, hindering their ability to contest the allegations effectively. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that some relied-upon documents were not supplied, and many non-relied-upon documents were crucial for the appellants' defense.

4. Denial of Cross-examination:
The appellants were denied the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses whose statements were relied upon in the show-cause notice. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner should have provided another reasonable opportunity for cross-examination, as the denial amounted to a negation of natural justice.

5. Non-supply of Original Documents:
The show-cause notice relied on copies of import documents from Dubai Customs. The appellants argued that they should have been given the original documents or allowed to inspect them. The Tribunal agreed that denying this opportunity was a violation of natural justice.

6. Non-consideration of Submissions and Documents:
The appellants' submissions and documents were not considered by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner ignored crucial documents and submissions, leading to a pre-determined conclusion without independent application of mind.

7. Joint and Several Liability:
The adjudicating authority held Vision, RAO, and other exporters "jointly and severally liable" for the entire drawback amount. The Tribunal found no legal provision for such recovery and directed the Commissioner to fix individual duty liability based on individual drawback claims.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order due to gross negation of natural justice and non-application of mind. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority with specific directions to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice, including the return of non-relied-upon documents, supply of relied-upon documents, allowing cross-examination, and considering all documentary evidence and submissions. The Commissioner was directed to pass a speaking order on all issues within six months, without ordering joint and several recovery or imposing separate penalties on a proprietorship and its proprietor.