2014 (1) TMI 639 - AT - Customs

Over valuation of consignments of carpets/floor coverings - Claim of higher drawback and gain benefit of excess exports - Violation of principle of natural justice - Cross examination of witness - Held that - cross examination request by the appellants as made vide their letter dated 23.5.2012 was allowed. If that be so, the adjudicating authority is bound to produce witnesses as requested by the appellants for cross examination. In any case, if the adjudicating authority subsequently changed his mind, he was duty bound to intimate the same to the appellants, about the reasons for change of his mind not to grant cross examination of experts to the appellants. In any case, we find that even on 22.8.2012 the customs officers were tendered for cross examination and there was no reference of panch witnesses. Appellants have received fax message for cross examination only in the evening of 21.8.2012 intimating that the adjudicating authority has allowed cross examination which would be taken on 22.8.2012. One day prior notice for conducting cross examination cannot be held to be a sufficient notice to the advocate as also to the party who were located in Amritsar - Cross examination of the witnesses may require much more than 3 personal hearings and the Commissioner s reference to the provisions of the said section for justifying his passing of the impugned order without any further hearing cannot be appreciated. It is cardinal principle of law that nobody should be condemned without hearing and affording the accused person a reasonable opportunity to put forth his defence - impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem fit to set aside the impugned and remand the matter to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Alleged overvaluation of export products, violation of principles of natural justice during adjudication process.

Alleged Overvaluation of Export Products:
The judgment revolves around the disputed issue of alleged overvaluation of consignments of carpets/floor coverings meant for export. The Revenue seized the consignments under the cover of panchnama and sought expert opinions from various bodies. The appellants were accused of overvaluing their products to claim higher drawback benefits. The proceedings were initiated against them through a show cause notice, and during the adjudication process, the appellants requested cross-examination of panch witnesses, customs officers, and experts relied upon by the Revenue. However, there were delays and miscommunications regarding the scheduling of cross-examinations, leading to a lack of proper opportunity for the appellants to present their case.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The crux of the judgment lies in the finding that the order passed by the Commissioner was in gross violation of the principle of natural justice. The Commissioner proceeded to decide the issue based on the interim reply of the appellants without ensuring proper cross-examination opportunities. The appellants contended that they were not given adequate notice for cross-examination, and the adjudicating authority failed to provide a fair hearing process. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of affording the accused a reasonable opportunity to present their defense and criticized the one-sided adjudication based solely on allegations without proper rebuttal.

Judgment and Remand:
The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the adjudication process, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication. It was highlighted that the adjudication should be completed following the basic principles of natural justice, ensuring the appellants' requests for cross-examination are duly considered. The Tribunal stressed the importance of fair hearings and avoiding one-sided adjudications to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Additional Observations:
One of the judges added that the case should be sent back to the original authorities for thorough examination of substantive evidence following due process of law. It was mentioned that if the interest of Revenue is prejudiced, the appellant may not be entitled to a refund of the amount deposited as a protection measure. This deposit would be subject to the result of the de novo adjudication order, emphasizing the importance of balancing the interests of both parties in the legal process.