2001 (9) TMI 118 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Validity of the communication dated 24-2-2000 as a show-cause notice.
3. Legitimacy of the impugned order dated 30-8-2000 revoking the Custom Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The petitioners contended that the revocation of the Custom Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) by the respondent was done without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice are fundamental and ensure that an individual has the right to be heard before any adverse action is taken against them. The court noted that the impugned order was passed without issuing a proper show-cause notice, which deprived the petitioners of their right to defend themselves.

2. Validity of the Communication Dated 24-2-2000 as a Show-Cause Notice:

The petitioners argued that the communication dated 24-2-2000 could not be considered a show-cause notice as it did not specify the purpose for which the information was sought or the consequences of not providing satisfactory information. The court agreed, stating that the communication was merely a request for information and did not indicate any intention to revoke the CDEC. The court held that a proper show-cause notice must clearly state the purpose and potential consequences, which was not the case here.

3. Legitimacy of the Impugned Order Dated 30-8-2000:

The court examined whether the impugned order dated 30-8-2000 was legitimate, given that it was based on the information provided in response to the communication dated 24-2-2000. The court found that the order was passed without giving the petitioners a fair opportunity to present their case, as the communication could not be deemed a valid show-cause notice. The court referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court, which held that actions taken without providing a reasonable opportunity to the concerned parties could not be sustained. The court concluded that the impugned order was in violation of the principles of natural justice and thus could not be upheld.

Conclusion:

The court quashed and set aside both the communication dated 24-2-2000 and the impugned order dated 30-8-2000. It directed the respondents to issue an appropriate fresh show-cause notice to the petitioners and to pass a final order only after giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.