2015 (10) TMI 193 - AT - Customs

Principle of Natural Justice Appellant stated that he received show cause notice and made detailed submissions in reply to show cause notice but none of his submissions have been considered by Commissioner in his adjudication order Further commissioner come to conclusion that appellant had not merely diverted goods sold on High Sea Sale Basis but also funded/financed transaction and no opportunity was given by Commissioner Held that - clear that principles of natural justice have not been followed From reading of statements it cannot be concluded that appellant had funded consignments in absence of any other evidence In view of said reasons, it is appropriate to remand matter to adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication by following principles of natural justice Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Non-compliance with principles of natural justice - Consideration of submissions and personal hearing - Funding allegations in adjudication order - Interpretation of statements - Remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants raised concerns regarding the lack of compliance with the principles of natural justice in their cases. In the first appellant's case, it was highlighted that the personal hearing notice was received from a different Commissioner than the one who decided the case. Similarly, in the second appellant's case, despite attending the personal hearing and submitting a reply to the show cause notice, these aspects were not considered in the adjudication order. The third appellant's submissions were also allegedly not taken into account by the Commissioner. The judgment noted discrepancies in the adjudication order, especially regarding funding allegations against the third appellant, where statements denying funding were not adequately considered.

Upon hearing both sides, the tribunal acknowledged that the principles of natural justice were not followed in the cases of the first two appellants. Regarding the third appellant, the tribunal observed that the statements provided did not conclusively prove the funding allegations, emphasizing the need for a thorough consideration of evidence in the adjudication process. Consequently, the tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication for all appellants, emphasizing the importance of adhering to natural justice principles. The Commissioner was directed to issue a new order within four months due to the case's age.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the significance of upholding natural justice principles in adjudication processes and ensuring that all submissions and evidence are duly considered before reaching conclusions. The decision to remand the matter for fresh adjudication underscores the tribunal's commitment to fairness and due process in legal proceedings.