9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was found guilty of a charge not alleged in the show cause notice. 2. Whether the order passed by the Collector is unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the same is required to be interfered with. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the appellant was found guilty of a charge not alleged in the show cause notice: The show cause notice dated 8-2-1982 alleged that the appellant imported goods by land from foreign territory into India through an unauthorized route without a valid import license or permission from the Reserve Bank of India, thereby contravening the Import Control Order, 1955, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The notice indicated that the seized goods were liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Collector's order concluded that the appellant was involved in financing the smuggling of textile goods from India to Bangladesh and medicines from Bangladesh to India, and that the Indian currency of Rs. 2,86,500/- found in the appellant's house represented the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. This finding was diametrically opposed to the charge in the show cause notice, which focused on illegal import rather than export activities. The tribunal found that the appellant was prejudiced as he was not given sufficient notice of the charge that was ultimately held against him. 2. Whether the order passed by the Collector is unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the same is required to be interfered with: Shri M.A. Razack, representing the appellant, argued that the Collector's finding was beyond the scope of the show cause notice and that the letter dated 27-5-1982 from the Assistant Collector could not be considered a second show cause notice. The tribunal agreed, noting that the letter did not comply with the requirements of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates a written notice informing the person of the grounds for confiscation or penalty, an opportunity to make a representation, and a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The tribunal also found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the cash found in the appellant's house was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The appellant's wife had accounted for the cash in her Income Tax return, and the Income Tax Authorities had not disputed this. The tribunal concluded that the circumstances were not conclusive and that the Collector's order was based on assumptions and presumptions. Conclusion: The tribunal set aside the Collector's order directing confiscation of the Indian currency and imposing a penalty, and ordered that the cash seized from the appellant's house be returned to him.
|
