2005 (4) TMI 104 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of natural justice and violation of proceedings resulting in confiscation of diamonds.
2. Locus standi of the appellant and determination of being an 'unpaid seller'.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of natural justice and violation of proceedings resulting in confiscation of diamonds
The case involved a consignment of rough diamonds sent by a company registered in Belgium to Mumbai, which was to be purchased by a consignee. However, upon learning about alleged forged license case for importation of diamonds by the consignee, the appellants took immediate steps to prevent delivery of the goods. Despite multiple efforts to engage with Customs authorities and other relevant bodies, the appellants were not provided with any information or assistance regarding the status of the consignment. The Customs authorities failed to involve the appellants in the adjudication proceedings and confiscated the diamonds without giving them a chance to explain their conduct. The Tribunal found that there was a clear denial of natural justice and a deliberate effort to exclude the claimant from claiming the goods. As a result, the order for confiscation was set aside, and de novo adjudication was ordered.

Issue 2: Locus standi of the appellant and determination of being an 'unpaid seller'
The Departmental Representative claimed that the appellant had no locus standi as they were not persons aggrieved. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the appellant had been actively trying to participate in the proceedings to clear the goods and had been kept away from the same. The Tribunal recognized the appellant as a person aggrieved against the order of confiscation, emphasizing their efforts to follow the law and clear the goods they claimed to be their own. It was determined that the appellant needed to be heard in the matter, and their claim as an 'unpaid seller' needed to be examined. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for further proceedings, directing that the appellant be provided with a copy of the show cause notice and given an opportunity to present their case for clearing or reshipping the goods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal as a remand, setting a time-bound readjudication period of four months for the Commissioner. The Tribunal refrained from making other findings on the raised issues, leaving them open for the appellants to address before the adjudicator in the future proceedings.