2023 (7) TMI 970 - HC - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice - Opportunity of hearing granted or not - recording only the arguments/submissions of the Department without looking into the case/defense of the Appellant already available on record - conspiracy of the import consignments by resorting to smuggling of goods of high value through the import consignments set to contain goods of low value - HELD THAT - The finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order that the Appellant is the importer of the goods and the payments have been made from his bank account is contrary to the finding of the Tribunal in its order dated 25th October 2010, while disposing of the stay application, inasmuch as, in the said order, the Tribunal has observed that most of the Appellants did not file any bill of entry and two bills of entry were filed in the name of J.N. Export International. The contradictory finding is not borne out from any material, but appears to be based only on the submissions made by the revenue before the Tribunal in the absence of the Appellant. It is in the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 16th November 2017, insofar as the present Appellant is concerned requires to be set aside and a fresh adjudication ordered - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the Customs Act, 1962, specifically focusing on the Tribunal's order dated 16th November 2017 and the subsequent appeal filed by the Appellant.

Issue 1: Tribunal's Decision Making Process
The Appellant questioned the Tribunal's decision-making process, specifically whether the Tribunal was right in passing the order without considering the Appellant's case/defense already available on record. The Tribunal had passed the order in absence of the Appellant, recording only the arguments/submissions of the Department. The Appellant contended that the Tribunal should have looked into his case/defense before passing the order.

Issue 2: Merits of the Tribunal's Order
The Appellant also raised the issue of whether the Tribunal could pass an order on "Merits" without considering the Appellant's case/defense already argued and on record of the Tribunal. The Appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision, claiming that the Tribunal had not adequately considered his case and had relied solely on the submissions of the revenue without giving him an opportunity to rebut.

Summary of Judgment:
The case involved a Customs Act matter where the Appellant was penalized for alleged involvement in a conspiracy related to import consignments. The Tribunal initially waived the pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of penalties imposed, but later, on 16th November 2017, decided the appeal ex-parte on merits, rejecting the Appellant's adjournment request. The Tribunal's order stated that the goods were imported by the Appellant and payments were made from his account, contrary to the findings in the stay application decision.

Upon review, the High Court found that the Tribunal's finding that the Appellant was the importer of the goods was contradictory to its earlier decision while disposing of the stay application. The Court noted that the Tribunal erred in recording such a finding without any basis and solely relying on the revenue's submissions in the Appellant's absence. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and ordered a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of providing the Appellant with an opportunity to present his case.

The Court directed the Appellant to approach the Tribunal for a new hearing, without seeking adjournment, and instructed the Tribunal to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of the High Court's order. The appeal was disposed of with no costs incurred.