2019 (6) TMI 1233 - HC - Customs

Advance License Scheme - import of copper concentrate - violation of conditions of the advance licenses - the Central Excise authorities were still of the view that a show-cause notice was required to be issued to the Company - HELD THAT - It is seen that the appellants are issued with the show cause notice by the first respondent. Their challenge against the said show cause notice was not successful before this Court. However, they approached the Apex Court and filed Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by this Court in refusing to interfere with the show cause notice. Though the appellants, by way of an interim relief before the Apex Court, sought for stay of further proceedings, it is seen that the Apex Court, by order dated 21.04.2017, permitted the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, namely, the first respondent herein, to pass final order and keep it in a sealed cover - Thus, from the perusal of the said interim order of the Apex Court, it is evident that the first respondent can go ahead with the adjudication process and also pass the final orders and however, he has to keep such order in a sealed cover. Whether the rejection of the request made by the appellants for furnishing certain documents needs to be interfered with in these appeals? - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the appellants already filed an RTI application and obtained copies of the letters, dated 13.09.2014 and 09.01.2015 sent by the Customs Department to the Central Exercise Department. They want reply filed by the Central Excise Department in response those two letters and also another letter, dated 29.04.2011 issued by the Customs Department. When it is the specific case of the first respondent that those documents sought by the appellants are not relied upon documents in the show cause notice, we failed to understand as to how the appellants are justified in making the demand in the enquiry to furnish such of those documents which are not relied upon documents by the revenue. The department cannot rely upon certain documents to proceed against the other person without furnishing copies of such documents to him, so as to enable such person to defend the enquiry effectively. At the same time, if the department has not relied on certain documents, which are sought to be furnished by the other side, certainly, there is no vested right on the person to seek such documents in the domestic enquiry/adjudicatory proceedings - The right to seek a document under the Right to Information Act cannot be equated with a right to seek a document in the domestic enquiry/adjudicatory proceedings, since both the rights are not on the same footing and on the other hand, they are on different context. Under the Right to Information Act, a person seeking certain documents need not give any reason for his requirement. However, if the documents sought under RTI application is either prohibited or exempted document as contemplated under Section 8 of the said Act, the same need not be furnished. It is stated that the appellants submitted that an RTI application for furnishing documents and that the same is pending. If that be the case, it is for the appellants to work out their remedy under the said application in a manner known to law, as this Court at this stage, is not expressing any view on that application, at it would go beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the present appeals. There is no question of law much less substantial one as raised in these appeals arises for consideration to entertain these appeals - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Final Orders of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai; Alleged misuse of advance authorization scheme; Rejection of requests for furnishing documents and cross-examination; Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing copper products, was issued advance licenses for importing copper concentrate. Central Excise Authorities initiated an investigation in 2010 alleging license violations. The Company disputed the allegations, leading to a draft show-cause notice. Despite Customs authorities disagreeing with misuse claims, Central Excise authorities insisted on issuing a notice. The appellant filed a writ petition to prevent the notice issuance, which became infructuous when the notice was issued. Further legal challenges ensued, including Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, resulting in an order for the Commissioner of Customs to proceed with adjudication. The appellant requested copies of correspondence between Customs and Central Excise for the enquiry, which was partly rejected by the first respondent.

The main legal questions raised in the appeals were whether the rejection of document requests was justified and if the principles of natural justice were upheld. The Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that the documents were crucial for the enquiry and failure to provide them would prejudice the appellants. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the first respondent contended that the requests were vague and unnecessary, especially since some documents were already provided through RTI applications.

The High Court noted that the documents sought were not relied upon in the show cause notice. It emphasized that the right to seek documents in an enquiry is based on their relevance to the case and their status as relied-upon materials. The Court differentiated between seeking documents under the Right to Information Act and in an adjudicatory process, highlighting that the latter requires a direct nexus to the case. The Tribunal's decision to reject the document request was deemed appropriate, as the documents were not integral to the case against the appellants.

The Court concluded that the appellants could pursue obtaining the documents through RTI applications or appeals under the RTI Act. It declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as no substantial legal question arose from the rejection of the document request. The appeals were dismissed, with no costs imposed. The Court emphasized the need for the appellants to address their document retrieval through proper legal channels, separate from the adjudicatory proceedings.

In summary, the judgment addressed the challenges against the show cause notice, the rejection of document requests, and the application of principles of natural justice in the adjudicatory process. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to deny certain document requests, emphasizing the importance of relevance and reliance in seeking documents for an enquiry. The appellants were advised to pursue document retrieval through appropriate channels outside the adjudicatory process.