2019 (9) TMI 249 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - non-receipt of notice for personal hearing - Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 - case of the petitioner is that through Ext. P5, the petitioner has come to know that the second respondent has been authorised to act as adjudicating authority into the show cause notice issued to the petitioner - HELD THAT - After juxtaposing the hearing dated 27. 07. 2019 referred to in Ext. P8 order and the reply given in the statement filed by the second respondent, prima facie this Court is of the view that the second respondent is unable to satisfactorily establish the service of notice of scheduled hearing on 27. 07. 2019 on petitioner or that the procedural safeguards are substantially complied with before passing the order in Ext. P8. The second respondent is not also proposing to establish its case that principles of natural justice are followed by producing the original record - the order in Ext. P8 could be set aside as violative of principles of natural justice and restore the matter back to the file of the second respondent for disposal in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Customs Act, 1962 for being illegal and violative of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested an order made under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, claiming it to be illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that they were unaware of a hearing scheduled on 27.07.2019, as mentioned in the order, and were not served a notice regarding the same. The petitioner asserted having a substantial defense against the allegations in the show cause notice, emphasizing the denial of a fair opportunity prejudicially affecting their rights. The petitioner did not delve into the specifics of the allegations but focused on the procedural irregularities.

The court, upon the request of the second respondent's counsel, directed the matter to be listed for the second respondent to submit their pleadings. The statement of the second respondent was duly recorded. After comparing the hearing date mentioned in the order with the second respondent's reply, the court found that the second respondent failed to satisfactorily prove the service of notice or compliance with procedural safeguards before issuing the order. The second respondent also did not provide evidence to demonstrate adherence to principles of natural justice.

In light of the above, the court concluded that the order in question violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court decided to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the second respondent for proper disposal in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to submit a reply with supporting documents by a specified date and appear for an inquiry before the second respondent on a designated day and time. These directions aimed at ensuring a fair and just resolution of the matter in compliance with legal principles.