9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Denial of request for extension of bonded period for liquors imported by Ship Chandlers. 2. Dismissal of appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act due to non-pre-deposit of duty. 3. Principles of natural justice not followed by the First Appellate Authority. Analysis: 1. The appeal involved the denial of a request for extension of the bonded period for various liquors imported by Ship Chandlers. The appellants argued that the goods were still in a private warehouse under Customs' control, making it difficult for them to pre-deposit the duty demanded. The First Appellate Authority had passed an interim order requiring full pre-deposit without granting a hearing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The advocate contended that the denial of the extension was unjust as the goods were under Customs custody, ensuring revenue security. The Tribunal acknowledged the advocate's strong case and the need for a fair consideration. 2. The dismissal of the appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act was based on the non-pre-deposit of the duty demanded. The Department argued that the bond period had expired, justifying the duty demand under Section 72. However, the Tribunal found a total denial of natural justice by the First Appellate Authority for not providing a personal hearing before deciding on the pre-deposit amount. Citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting a hearing in such matters to uphold the principles of natural justice. 3. The issue of principles of natural justice not being followed by the First Appellate Authority was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Tribunal noted that the denial of a personal hearing before adjudicating on the pre-deposit amount violated natural justice. Referring to a previous judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Tribunal highlighted the obligation of the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide a hearing in cases of stay applications. The Tribunal ordered a waiver of the pre-deposit amount and a stay on recovery during the appeal's pendency, emphasizing the importance of ensuring natural justice in such proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration without insisting on any pre-deposit. The judgment underscored the significance of upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair hearing in customs matters.
|
