2016 (2) TMI 576 - HC - Customs

Undervaluation of import - Demand of differential duty - Appellate remedy - Principle of natural justice - petitioners stated that before they could file their replies, they should be furnished the non-relied upon documents - It is stated that the Adjudicating Authority gets only the relied upon documents from the Investigative Agency i.e. DRI and the Adjudicating Authority is not possessed of the documents demanded by the petitioners. - Held that - The counsel for the petitioners states that though according to him no appeal lies against such order but in view of the said statement of the counsel for the respondent, the petitioners would avail the remedy of appeal. - Recording the aforesaid, the petitions are disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in furnishing non-relied upon documents by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to petitioners.
2. Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India during the pendency of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Impleading only the Adjudicating Authority as the respondent in the petitions.
4. Availability of remedy against the order of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, served with notices by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in 2008 for undervaluation of imports, requested non-relied upon documents for contesting proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. Despite repeated requests, the documents were not furnished, leading to a delay in filing replies by the petitioners. The Adjudicating Authority, in an order dated October 29, 2015, directed the petitioners to file their replies without waiting for the documents, causing the petitioners to seek an extension of time through these petitions.

2. The High Court highlighted that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India during ongoing proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority should be avoided unless there is a violation of prescribed procedures or a lack of jurisdiction. The Court referenced previous judgments emphasizing that such interference at an interim stage could delay proceedings and increase litigation. The Court noted that the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing the petitioners to file replies was considered an interim order, and the appropriate remedy against the final order lay through appeal.

3. The counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioners had only impleaded the Adjudicating Authority as the respondent, whereas the non-supply of documents was the responsibility of the DRI. The respondent contended that the petitions should be dismissed for not including the DRI as a party. Additionally, it was stated that any grievance against the order of the Adjudicating Authority should be addressed to the Appellate Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962.

4. The petitioners, although initially claiming no appeal lay against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, decided to pursue the remedy of appeal based on the statement of the respondent's counsel. The Court disposed of the petitions without costs, emphasizing that the Adjudicating Authority's order was subject to appeal under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment concluded by directing the issuance of the order copy to the concerned parties.