9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for lack of document inspection and supply before hearing of appeal. Refund of Drawback under Section 28 of Customs Act. Necessity of document inspection for principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings. Analysis: The writ petitioners challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) alleging lack of document inspection and supply before the appeal hearing, contending a violation of natural justice principles. The matter was remanded back by the Joint Secretary of the Government of India for de novo consideration. Refund of Drawback under Section 28 of the Customs Act was highlighted, allowing a period of six months extendable up to five years in cases of misrepresentation, wilful suppression, or fraudulent actions. The petitioners argued that without access to necessary documents, they could not effectively present their case before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The respondent's counsel argued that specific documents crucial to the case were not provided to the petitioners, including statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act and various letters and correspondences. While the respondent contended that most of these documents belonged to the petitioners, the necessity of document inspection was emphasized to understand the context and make appropriate submissions effectively. Both parties acknowledged the importance of document inspection for a fair hearing and the foundation of civil justice. The judgment emphasized the significance of document inspection and supply in maintaining the principles of natural justice, especially in quasi-judicial proceedings concerning fiscal statutes. It was noted that without specifying the documents, the requirement for inspection and supply was crucial for a fair and just hearing. The judgment highlighted the importance of a free, frank, and fair hearing, emphasizing the need for reasonable opportunities for document inspection and exchange, fundamental to rendering justice. The ruling emphasized that even in revenue laws, minor differences could lead to significant outcomes, underscoring the necessity for a thorough and fair process. The Court found no justifiable reason for denying document inspection and ruled in favor of the writ petitioners. The impugned order was set aside, and the authority was directed to provide appropriate document inspection and supply within one month. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) or the relevant authority was instructed to grant a reasonable hearing to all parties and pass an appropriate order promptly following the completion of document inspection and supply. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs awarded, and certified copies of the judgment were to be supplied to the parties within seven days.
|
