2019 (1) TMI 2000 - HC - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-service of notice at proper address - over-invoicing of consignments of garments to claim fraudulent and ineligible drawbacks - HELD THAT - In the interest of justice, the petitioners should urge all grounds available to them, including the issue of lack of opportunity and all grounds relating to that, in the appeal to the Commissioner. In case the appeals are filed within three weeks from today, the same shall be heard on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the requirement of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the sum demanded should be entirely waived and not insisted upon. In other words, the appeals to the Commissioner shall be heard on the merits; the requirement of depositing the amounts shall stand waived. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Lack of natural justice in adjudication process, lack of personal hearings, financial status of petitioners, waiver of pre-deposit requirement in appeals to the Commissioner.

In this judgment by the Delhi High Court, the petitioners raised concerns regarding the principles of natural justice not being followed by the Joint Commissioner during the adjudication of a show cause notice related to alleged over-invoicing of consignments of garments for fraudulent drawbacks. The petitioners argued that they were denied personal hearings as the intimation of hearing was sent to incorrect addresses. The Court noted that the petitioners, based on additional affidavits, seemed to lack sufficient means, with one being a driver and the other a tea vendor. Consequently, the Court opined that the petitioners should raise all available grounds, including lack of opportunity, in their appeal to the Commissioner. The Court directed that if the appeals are filed within three weeks, they would be heard on merits without being dismissed on the ground of limitation. Additionally, in a departure from the norm, the Court decided to entirely waive the pre-deposit requirement of 7.5% of the demanded sum for the appeals, emphasizing that the appeals would be heard on their merits without the need for depositing the amounts. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, with the cancellation of the previously fixed date for proceedings.

Overall, the judgment addresses the issues of lack of natural justice in the adjudication process, absence of personal hearings, the financial status of the petitioners, and the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement in appeals to the Commissioner. The Court's decision reflects a fair and just approach by ensuring that the petitioners have the opportunity to present all grounds in their appeal, regardless of financial status, and by removing the financial barrier of the pre-deposit requirement for the appeals to be heard on their merits.