2011 (11) TMI 278 - AT - Customs

Violation of the principles of natural justice - intimations of personal hearings were received by assessee after the due date of hearing Held that - This is a fact on record that both the letters were received by the appellants after the due date of personal hearing disabling them to appear before the adjudicating authority to explain their case. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the original authority for de novo adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
Wrong availment of drawback scheme in the export of brass articles and artwares, imposition of penalties by Jt. Commissioner, confirmation of penalties by Commissioner (Appeals), admission of appeals in the interest of justice, violation of principles of natural justice in the order passed by Jt. Commissioner.

Analysis:
The case revolves around the wrongful availment of a drawback scheme by M/s. Santosh Sai Exim Pvt. Ltd. in the export of brass articles and artwares. The export documents were found to have mis-declared weight and value to claim higher drawback amounts. The goods were intercepted by the DRI and upon examination, were discovered to be inflated in terms of weight and value. Consequently, penalties of Rs.40,000/- on one individual and Rs.10,000/- each on two others were imposed by the Jt. Commissioner, which were later confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that a similar issue had been addressed in a separate show-cause notice for past exports by the same exporter, which was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs. They contended that since the issue was the same, the present appeals should be admitted in the interest of justice. The Tribunal found that the issue involved in the present case was indeed the same as in the past exports, leading to the admission of the appeals.

Regarding the violation of principles of natural justice, the appellants claimed that they were not provided with copies of certain documents and that the letters for personal hearings were received after the due dates. This was considered a breach of natural justice by the Tribunal, leading to the decision to remand the matter back to the original authority for de novo adjudication. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand, with the direction for the original authority to conduct a fresh adjudication after giving the appellants the opportunity to be heard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments regarding the violation of natural justice and decided to remand the case for a fresh adjudication. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.