2017 (7) TMI 184 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - fabrication of shipping bills to enable duty-free import - whether adequate opportunity had been afforded to the appellant which he did not avail of? - Held that - there is no challenge that the contents of the show cause notice lacked consistency and veracity. It is also not contended by the appellant that the documents sustaining the allegations had not been provided - The impugned order has a detailed finding on the role and involvement of the appellant in the entire scheme of imports besides being not unaware of the illicit origins of the advance licences used to claim the benefit of duty exemption. Even in the appeal filed before us, the appellant has not considered it necessary to distance himself from the conspiracy that has been established in the impugned order. There is no reason to hold that the adjudicating authority would have arrived at a different conclusion had the appellant joined the adjudication proceedings - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Impugned order fastened duty liability, interest, and penalty on the appellant under Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged the order for violating principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The impugned order dated 22nd June 2005 imposed duty liability, interest, and penalty on the appellant for imports valued at &8377; 61,17,821 under Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contested the order on grounds of natural justice violation, not disputing the conclusions of the adjudicating authority.

2. The appellant filed four bills of entry for importing brass scrap against advance licenses under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate scheme. The export obligation was declared fulfilled through fabricated shipping bills, leading to duty-free imports. Investigations revealed the scheme to evade customs monitoring, with the appellant identified as the beneficiary.

3. The impugned order examined evidence and concluded the appellant benefited from the fabricated shipping bills. The appellant's lack of representation during the personal hearing was contested, raising concerns about the legality and propriety of the order.

4. The show cause notice issued to the appellant was consistent, and the appellant did not challenge the evidence provided. Despite claims of address change, communications regarding personal hearings were not effectively responded to, raising questions about the appellant's diligence in availing opportunities for defense.

5. The appellant failed to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice and relied on oral submissions during the personal hearing. The impugned order detailed the appellant's involvement in the import scheme, with no attempt by the appellant to distance from the established conspiracy.

6. The appellant's failure to actively participate in the adjudication proceedings was noted, with no assertion that participation would have altered the outcome. The appeal was deemed without merit, as the appellant did not present compelling reasons for a different conclusion.

7. The Tribunal found no basis to overturn the impugned order, as the appellant's lack of engagement in the proceedings did not warrant a different outcome. The appeal was dismissed on 12/06/2017, emphasizing the importance of active participation and diligent defense in legal proceedings.