2011 (8) TMI 937 - AT - Customs

Adjournment - cause list was issued yesterday evening and he saw the same today morning on the notice board he is not prepared for the cases - Assessee requested insufficient notice of few hrs. issuing cause list shall defeat the purpose of justice. Therefore, minimum 15 days notice is required for hearing - Held That - They deserve fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing with sufficient notice. We are of the view that the respondents represented by all the three aforesaid counsels shall be heard from 5th September, 2011, continuously until hearing is completed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Lack of preparedness due to sudden listing of cases without proper notice.
2. Request for sufficient notice for hearing by all parties involved.
3. Need for continuous hearing without disruption to meet the time frame set by the High Court.
4. Representation and notice requirements for the respondents.
5. Cooperation with the Registry for timely issuance of notices.
6. Grievance regarding non-receipt of previous order copies by the counsel.

Analysis:
1. The counsel representing the respondents raised concerns about the sudden listing of cases without adequate notice, impacting their preparedness for the hearing. They emphasized the importance of proper notice to ensure all concerned parties can participate effectively in the proceedings.

2. To address the issue of insufficient notice, the counsels requested a minimum of 15 days' notice for the hearing to allow for proper preparation and participation. They highlighted the need for instructions from clients who were outside Delhi and suggested a starting date for the hearing in September 2011 to accommodate all parties.

3. Both sides agreed on the necessity of continuous hearings without disruption to adhere to the time frame stipulated by the High Court. The Tribunal acknowledged the significance of providing customs officers with a fair opportunity for a hearing and decided to schedule continuous hearings for the represented respondents from 5th September 2011 onwards.

4. The counsels disclosed the clients they represented, and it was noted that the case of one respondent had already been heard, with an order reserved. The Tribunal directed the Registry to issue notices to all respondents, except the one whose case had been heard, for the upcoming hearings as per the agreed schedule.

5. Emphasizing the importance of cooperation with the Registry for expedited issuance of notices to reduce delays, the Tribunal urged both sides to work together towards ensuring timely communication with all parties involved in the proceedings.

6. Addressing the grievance raised by the Bar regarding non-receipt of previous order copies by the counsel, the Tribunal directed the Registry to promptly number and issue the current order to all concerned parties to avoid any further delays and ensure proper notification.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural and logistical considerations addressed by the Tribunal to ensure a fair and timely hearing process for all parties involved in the case.