2016 (5) TMI 1605 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - Denial of duty free benefits for the subject import consignment under Customs Notification No.98/2009-Cus, dt.11.09.2009, without detailed reasons - SCN also not issued - HELD THAT - Under the circumstances, the Tribunal cannot take up or decide the issue on merit. It would be in the fitness of things that the matter goes back to the Adjudicating authority who should put the appellants on notice and decide the issue by a speaking order after giving them a reasonable opportunity to be heard. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that this is a live consignment and therefore, a time limit may be specified - there are force in the contention of the learned Counsel and request the Adjudicating authority to dispose of the matter in accordance with the above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of duty free benefits under Customs Notification No.98/2009-Cus.
2. Lack of detailed reasoning in denial letter.
3. Absence of Show Cause Notice and hearing for the Appellants.
4. Request for time limit on live consignment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by M/s Indian Chemical Corporation against the denial of duty free benefits for an import consignment under Customs Notification No.98/2009-Cus. The denial was based on a letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs without detailed reasoning. The Tribunal noted the lack of a Show Cause Notice and the Appellants not being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal decided not to decide on the issue on merit and directed the matter to go back to the Adjudicating authority for a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the live nature of the consignment and the Appellant's request for a time limit. The learned Counsel for the Appellant requested a specified time frame for the Adjudicating authority to dispose of the matter. The Tribunal agreed with this request and directed the Adjudicating authority to resolve the issue within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

3. The Early Hearing Application and the Miscellaneous Application were disposed of, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the Appellants to be heard and for a speaking order to be issued by the Adjudicating authority. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.