2014 (7) TMI 843 - HC - Customs

Principle of natural justice - refusal to grant adjournment - Prohibited goods - seizure of the Red Sanders Wood - Held that - authorities acted in the contravention of the provisions contained under Section 122A of the said Act in not granting the adjournment though provided for. Furthermore, the petitioner was unheard as the reply came to be filed on the next day of the impugned order which was not allowed to be taken on the Court. - order impugned is set aside to the extent it operates against the petitioner - matter remanded back for re-adjudication - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Adjourning hearing dates
- Compliance with Customs Act 1962
- Opportunity for personal hearing
- Setting aside the impugned order

Adjourning hearing dates:
The petitioner sought an adjournment for the hearing date to be fixed in April 2014, but the authority proceeded to decide the matter on 31st March 2014 without informing the petitioner. The Court found that the authorities did not comply with Section 122A of the Customs Act 1962, which allows for adjournments to be granted. The respondent's argument that the matter proceeded due to the show cause notice not being filed within thirty days was rejected by the Court.

Compliance with Customs Act 1962:
The Court noted that Section 122A empowers the adjudicating authority to grant time to parties and adjourn hearings, with a limit of three adjournments. The authorities failed to inform the petitioner about the rejection of the adjournment request or the next hearing date, which was a violation of the Act. The Court emphasized the importance of following the procedural requirements laid down in the Customs Act.

Opportunity for personal hearing:
The show cause notice provided an opportunity for the petitioner to file a reply within thirty days and appear for a personal hearing. However, the hearing was fixed nearly a year after the notice was issued, and the petitioner's request for adjournment was not considered. The Court found that the petitioner was unheard as the reply was filed after the impugned order was passed, which was not acceptable.

Setting aside the impugned order:
The Court held that the authority's actions in passing the impugned order without granting an adjournment and hearing to the petitioner were not sustainable. The order was set aside to the extent it affected the petitioner, and the authority was directed to fix a date for a personal hearing, consider the reply, and pass a new order within four weeks. The Court emphasized that the authority should decide the matter independently without any external influence.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above observations, and no costs were awarded in this case.