2019 (3) TMI 1148 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - case of appellant is that the impugned order is flawed in not having taken their submissions into consideration while adjudicating the notice - Held that - The proceedings were initiated against the goods even before bills of entry were filed, i.e. before an importer could be identified with the import, and that role of the present appellant were established through various evidences. Considering the criticality of these evidences, and the lack of credibility arising from the untested status of those, the Tribunal had, on the last occasion, remanded the matter to ensure such compliance on the specific plea of the appellant. It is not open to the appellant to plead for a relief that was granted and, upon failure to avail of that relief, to claim a different ground for assailing the first order now. The original order has ceased to exist insofar as the appellant is concerned and the substituted order did not have to proceed in merit in view of the failure of the appellant to participate in the proceedings as directed in the remand order of the Tribunal to subject the evidence to test. By failure to participate in the cross-examination, there is an implicit admission of the relevancy of these statements. There is no case in favor of appellant - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original not considering appellant's submissions, cross-examination of customs house agent and alleged financier, appellant's participation in proceedings, appellant's claim of restrictive opportunities, failure to cross-examine co-accused, appellant's lack of respect for adjudicating process, failure to avail of relief granted, appellant's failure to participate in cross-examination.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the order-in-original for not considering their submissions. The Tribunal remanded the matter previously for cross-examination of the customs house agent and alleged financier. The Tribunal limited the remand order to rehearing the appeal with a direction to decide on cross-examination before a final order is passed.

2. The proceedings were initiated against the goods before bills of entry were filed, establishing the appellant's role through various evidences. The Tribunal remanded the matter to ensure compliance with cross-examination. The appellant's failure to participate in the proceedings and cross-examine the other individual was noted and not denied.

3. The appellant claimed the opportunities for cross-examination were restrictive and that the co-accused was beyond cross-examination, rendering the Tribunal's decision inoperative. The appellant did not take advantage of the chance to cross-examine the other individual, showing a lack of respect for the adjudicating process.

4. The appellant cannot plead for relief granted and then claim a different ground for assailing the original order. By failing to participate in cross-examination, there is an implicit admission of the relevancy of the statements. The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to participate in the proceedings as directed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's lack of participation in the proceedings, failure to cross-examine key individuals, and inability to avail of the opportunities provided. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with directions and participation in the adjudicating process, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.