1985 (12) TMI 224 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Board's order dated 22-12-1981; Setting aside of Board's order reducing penalty; Compliance with principles of natural justice in passing orders; Validity of Board's orders under Customs Act; Review of Board's own order; Financial hardship plea by appellant; Finality of Board's order dated 30-1-1981; Refund of penalty amount paid; Legality of Board's order dated 22-12-1981.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal seeking to set aside the Board's order dated 22-12-1981, which vacated a previous order reducing the penalty from Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 1,000. The appellant was penalized for being the custodian of confiscated wristwatches. The Board passed multiple orders, with the last one dated 22-12-1981 being challenged for lack of opportunity to explain the case, resulting in an increased penalty. The appellant argued that the third order violated principles of natural justice and sought its reversal.

The respondent contended that the first order of the Board dated 30-1-1981 was legally sound, and the subsequent order reducing the penalty was a legal nullity. The respondent emphasized that no revision application was filed against the initial order, making it final in law. The respondent argued that the appellant's appeal against the third order was unfounded, as the second order was without jurisdiction and corrected by the Board's final order dated 22-12-1981.

The appellant maintained that the Board's order dated 22-12-1981 was valid under old Section 128 of the Customs Act but lacked the power to review its own order. The appellant highlighted the payment of the reduced penalty amount and requested the appeal to be allowed based on this payment. The judge scrutinized the case, noting the unusual circumstances and the failure of the appellant's advocate to present correct facts. The judge ruled that the Board's order dated 30-1-1981 was final and correct, rendering the subsequent order reducing the penalty invalid. The judge rejected the appellant's appeal, stating that the rectification of an illegality in the Board's final order dated 22-12-1981 did not warrant a change.

In conclusion, the judge dismissed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the finality of the Board's initial order dated 30-1-1981 and the lack of jurisdiction for the subsequent orders. The judge upheld the rectification of the illegality in the final order dated 22-12-1981 and advised the appellant to seek a refund of the penalty amount paid if permissible under the law.