2023 (6) TMI 326 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release of goods - import of used rubber tyre cut in two pieces - restriction in the import of used tyres except those which have a cut in the bead wire or not - petitioner was not afforded personal hearing, since the notice was not served upon him - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - As pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, the petitioner, who now claims that he has all the documents and seeks one more indulgence to submit the documents to the respondents, has not complied with the earlier order in its letter and spirit. This Court had clearly and categorically directed the petitioner to submit all documents which they rely upon and it was for this reason, the impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted back. The first respondent was directed to pass orders within a period of three months. The petitioner was given the concession of relying on any document and collateral as evidence available with them and the first respondent was directed to pass orders after perusing the same and by applying the principles of preponderance of probability. However, the petitioner has not complied with the said direction. Further, the petitioner has an appellate remedy which he has not availed. A reading of the impugned order would clearly set out the fact that the petitioner has not filed a copy of the GST registration certificate at Rajasthan and though the first respondent has called upon the petitioner to produce the documents to substantiate their case, the petitioner has not cared to supply the details. The impugned order can be appealed before the Commissioner of Appeals within a period of 60 days. Considering the fact that this period has come to an end, the time taken in prosecuting this writ petition shall be waived and shall not be taken into account for calculating the period of limitation. This Writ Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the legality of the impugned order-in-original passed by the first respondent, the petitioner's claim for personal hearing and cross-examination, compliance with court orders, and the petitioner's failure to submit necessary documents.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Legality of the Impugned Order-in-Original
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing rubber products, imported goods that were seized by customs officials due to alleged non-compliance with import restrictions. Despite seeking provisional release and submitting replies, the first respondent proceeded to adjudicate the matter and imposed a substantial penalty. The petitioner challenged the lack of personal hearing and cross-examination during the proceedings.

Issue 2: Petitioner's Claim for Personal Hearing
The petitioner repeatedly requested personal hearings and cross-examination of witnesses to clarify the issue of compliance with import regulations. However, the first respondent proceeded with adjudication without granting these requests, leading to the imposition of a significant penalty. The petitioner contended that the lack of personal hearing violated their rights.

Issue 3: Compliance with Court Orders
Following previous litigation, the matter was remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration. Despite receiving a notice to produce necessary documents, the petitioner failed to comply within the specified timeline. The court noted the petitioner's delay and non-compliance with previous directives, emphasizing the importance of adhering to court orders.

Issue 4: Failure to Submit Necessary Documents
The court highlighted the petitioner's failure to submit essential documents, such as the GST registration certificate, to substantiate their claims regarding the imported goods. Despite multiple opportunities and directives, the petitioner did not provide the required evidence, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The court emphasized the availability of appellate remedies, which the petitioner had not pursued.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, noting the petitioner's non-compliance with previous orders and failure to provide essential documents. The court highlighted the petitioner's appellate remedies and the importance of adhering to court directives. The dismissal was without costs, with the petitioner granted the liberty to pursue further remedies.