2001 (1) TMI 126 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with the direction given by the Tribunal in the order of remand.
2. Opportunity for cross-examination of witness Mr. Vijay Parekh.
3. Violation of Circular No. 69/97-Cus. and Circular No. 79/98-Cus.
4. Timeliness of issuing the show cause notice.

Issue 1 - Compliance with Tribunal's Direction:
The Tribunal had remitted the matter for fresh disposal in Appeal No. C/324/99-A due to violations of natural justice principles and timeliness concerns. The Commissioner of Customs passed Order No. 8/2000, fixing the pen's value at Rs. 2 per piece and imposing penalties. However, the Commissioner failed to comply with the Tribunal's direction, leading to the setting aside of the order and remittance for proper compliance.

Issue 2 - Cross-Examination of Mr. Vijay Parekh:
The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination of Mr. Vijay Parekh, a crucial witness. The Commissioner relied on letters from Mr. Parekh reiterating his earlier statements, without ensuring his presence for cross-examination. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner should have ignored Mr. Parekh's evidence if his presence for cross-examination was not ensured, directing a fair decision based on other available materials.

Issue 3 - Violation of Circulars:
Circular No. 69/97-Cus. and Circular No. 79/98-Cus. prescribe timelines for issuing show cause notices, with extensions subject to the Commissioner's satisfaction. The Commissioner failed to address the timeliness of the show cause notice issuance, as directed by the Tribunal. This non-compliance contributed to the order's violation and subsequent setting aside for proper adherence to the Tribunal's directions.

Issue 4 - Timeliness of Show Cause Notice:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of examining the timeliness of the show cause notice issuance, as directed in the final order of remand. The Commissioner's failure to address this aspect further supported the decision to set aside the order and remit the matter for a new decision within a specified timeframe. The directive aimed to ensure expeditious resolution of the longstanding case in compliance with legal procedures and principles.