2022 (7) TMI 211 - HC - Customs

Smuggling of Gold - Baggage Rules - issuance of SCN by DRI - adjudicating authority, without affording an opportunity of cross examining the witnesses, passed the order-in- original - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The order impugned herein is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Judge for passing orders afresh, after deciding the issue relating to statutory violation, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to all the parties, as expeditiously as possible. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of adjudicating authority and first respondent's order-in-appeal under Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:
The Writ Appeals were filed against a common order dated 11.01.2021 by the learned Judge in W.P.Nos.5910, 5908 & 12756 of 2021. The appellants contended that M/s.Mundhra Bullion Private Limited was engaged in bullion trading and one of the former directors carried gold from Kolkata to Chennai. The DRI officials seized the gold, issued show cause notices, and initiated an adjudication process resulting in confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties. The appellants challenged these orders by filing statutory appeals under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The first respondent dismissed the appeals without providing sufficient opportunity for the appellants to present their case, leading to the filing of Writ Appeals (WA) by the appellants.

The first respondent's order-in-appeal dated 27.11.2020 set aside the denovo order and confiscated the gold bars, handbag, and other items, imposing hefty penalties on the appellants and others. The appellants sought interim stay of penalty recovery under section 112(a) of the Act, which was partially granted by the learned Judge. Subsequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous due to the availability of alternative appeal remedy, leading to the present Writ Appeals.

The appellants argued that the first respondent erred in confiscating the goods without following due process of law under section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962. They contended that the first respondent should not have relied on witness statements without allowing cross-examination by the appellants. The appellants also highlighted that they had restricted the relief sought in the writ petitions to statutory violations and intended to address other issues before the CESTAT. The learned counsel for the appellants sought to set aside the learned Judge's order and allow the writ appeals.

The respondents produced a communication from the Deputy Director of DRI suggesting the matter be remanded back to the single judge. Consequently, the learned Judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to decide the issue of statutory violation on merits, affording due opportunity to all parties. The Writ Appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no costs incurred.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges against the adjudicating authority's order and the first respondent's order-in-appeal under the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the importance of due process and affording opportunities for parties to present their case effectively.