2019 (3) TMI 1526 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - DEPB license - order passed ex-parte without hearing and allowing cross-examination - Held that - It is clear that the appellants are not serious and intend to complete the de novo adjudication proceeding by rebutting the allegations leveled against them and comply with direction of the order of this Tribunal. No doubt reasonable opportunity be allowed to the appellants to attend in person the case and advance their argument, but in the present case, the appellants had purposefully evaded the opportunities allowed to them to present their case and further opportunities will cause injustice to the Revenue - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, Cross-examination of officers, De novo adjudication proceedings

Violation of principles of natural justice:
The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority in a previous round of litigation due to the failure to supply evidence regarding the forged nature of a license to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice and providing the appellant with relevant materials to present their defense. Correspondence with the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) was made regarding the issue of a DEPB license, and the appellant was eventually provided with the relevant letters. However, the appellant failed to attend opportunities to appear before the adjudicating authority and request cross-examination of the officers who issued the letters. The Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct did not demonstrate a serious intention to participate in the proceedings and concluded that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The judgment cited by the Revenue supported the decision, emphasizing the importance of not seeking unnecessary adjournments and complying with the directions of the Tribunal.

Cross-examination of officers:
The appellant requested cross-examination of the officers from DGFT who issued certain letters, but the request was not allowed. The Revenue argued that denial of cross-examination could not be considered a violation of principles of natural justice, especially since the appellant failed to provide any evidence to doubt the authenticity of the letters. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention and found that the denial of cross-examination was justified in this case.

De novo adjudication proceedings:
The Tribunal had directed the adjudicating authority to complete the de novo proceedings within a specified period and instructed the appellant not to seek unnecessary adjournments. Despite these directions, the appellant failed to file a reply within the given timeframe and did not participate effectively in the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the appellant purposefully evaded opportunities to present their case and concluded that further opportunities would cause injustice to the Revenue. Based on the conduct of the appellant and the lack of merit in their arguments, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals.

Overall, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld the impugned orders, citing the appellant's lack of seriousness in participating in the proceedings as a key factor in their decision.