1985 (4) TMI 168 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the reference application.
2. Legality of the Tribunal's order and whether it involved any questions of law.
3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Validity of the confiscation and penalty imposed on the applicant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The applicant filed a reference application under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, beyond the prescribed 60-day period. The application was dispatched from Silchar on 13-2-1985 and received by the Tribunal on 20-2-1985. The applicant sought condonation of delay citing disruptions in communication and transport due to atmospheric disturbances, the death of his father, and postal delays. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's reasons, particularly the death of his father, as a sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay was condoned under the proviso to Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Legality of the Tribunal's Order:
The applicant proposed several questions of law, alleging errors in the Tribunal's order, including improper consideration of the Appellate Collector's order, violation of natural justice, and misinterpretation of facts. The Tribunal, however, held that no question of law arose from its order. It emphasized that the findings were based on facts and that the Tribunal had duly considered all evidence and materials. Thus, the reference application was rejected on the grounds that it did not involve any substantial question of law.

3. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The applicant contended that the Tribunal failed to address the violation of natural justice, particularly the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and the reliance on a retracted statement. The Tribunal found that the applicant had been given sufficient opportunity to present his case and that the findings were based on the evidence available. The Tribunal dismissed the claim of natural justice violation, stating that the procedural aspects were duly followed.

4. Validity of the Confiscation and Penalty:
The case involved the confiscation of 19.120 kg of silver lumps under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and a penalty under Section 112(a). The applicant claimed to have purchased the silver locally and argued against the confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalty, noting that the applicant failed to provide credible evidence of lawful acquisition. The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanations were inconsistent and unconvincing, and the initial onus of proof was discharged by the revenue authorities.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the reference application but rejected the application on the merits, concluding that no substantial question of law was involved. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalty, emphasizing that the findings were based on factual evidence and that due process was followed. The applicant's claims of natural justice violations and improper consideration of facts were dismissed.