2020 (1) TMI 1316 - HC - Customs

Levy of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - notice of hearing not provided - principles of natural Justice - HELD THAT - It is not necessary to dwell further on this issue as the Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the examination of the record and upon instructions, states that an opportunity will be given to the petitioner of personal hearing and an order will be passed. He states that the petitioner be put to the conditions that the petitioner will attend the hearing before the adjudicating authority. The order dated 13 March, 2019 is set aside and the proceedings before the respondent No. 2 stands revived - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 due to alleged breach of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, by the respondent No. 2 through Order-in-Original No. CAO No. CC-VA/26/2018-19. The petitioner contended that notices of personal hearing were not served on him, leading to a breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought for the writ petition to be entertained instead of being relegated to the appellate remedy.

The respondents initially argued that the petitioner failed to attend the scheduled personal hearings on multiple occasions despite having knowledge of the proceedings. However, the petitioner claimed that he did not receive notice of these hearings and last appeared on a different date. The Learned Counsel for the respondents, upon examining the record, agreed to provide the petitioner with another opportunity for a personal hearing before passing an order. The petitioner was required to attend the hearing before the adjudicating authority.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the order dated 13 March 2019, and the proceedings before respondent No. 2 were revived. The petitioner was directed to attend the respondent No. 2's office on a specified date and provide necessary details for future correspondence. The respondent No. 2 was instructed to inform the petitioner of the next hearing date if the proceedings were not concluded on the specified date. Importantly, the High Court clarified that its decision to set aside the order was based on procedural grounds and did not reflect on the merits of the contentions raised.

Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of on the terms mentioned above, emphasizing the importance of providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case and address the alleged breach of natural justice.