2018 (3) TMI 204 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - plea that they were never issued notice, nor an opportunity of being heard in person before the decision is taken was missed by the Tribunal before arriving at the decision - Held that - the proceedings could not have been completed against the present applicant in the manner as done by the Original Authority. To that extent, there is an apparent error in the order of the Tribunal at para 9 of the final order dated 19/09/2017 - The learned Counsel for the applicant only prays for a fair chance to represent their case before the Original Authority so that they can present their side of the defence with all supporting evidence - the matter is remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh finding after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to present their side of the case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake apparent error in final order, violation of principles of natural justice, remand of the matter to the Original Authority.

In this case, a miscellaneous application was filed for rectification of a mistake apparent error in the final order of the Tribunal, which disposed of two appeals against a common impugned order. The appeals were by an importer and a Customs House Agent (CHA) who processed the import consignment. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Original Authority, except for a reduction in fines and penalties. The applicant, the CHA, argued that the Tribunal failed to consider their plea that they were never issued a notice or given an opportunity to be heard before the adverse finding. The applicant contended that the waiver of notice and hearing was by the importer, not by them, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The Bench sought clarification from the Jurisdictional Authority, which confirmed that no show cause notice was issued to the CHA, no personal hearing was granted, and no request for waiver of notice or hearing was made by the CHA.

The Tribunal noted the categorical submission by the Jurisdictional Authorities and concluded that the proceedings against the CHA could not have been completed in the manner done by the Original Authority. Therefore, an apparent error existed in the final order, and paragraph 9 of the order was to be deleted. The miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake was allowed, and the appeal was taken up afresh. Both parties consented to the appeal being considered, and the CHA requested a fair chance to represent their case before the Original Authority with all supporting evidence. The Revenue had no objection to this course of action. Consequently, the findings against the CHA were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh determination after providing adequate opportunity for the CHA to present their defense.

In conclusion, the miscellaneous application and the appeal were disposed of with the terms mentioned, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a fair opportunity for the CHA to present their case before the Original Authority.