9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 712 - HC - CustomsSeeking release of the goods seized - Smuggling of Gold - case of the Petitioner is that no Show Cause Notice (SCN) was served upon the Petitioner and no personal hearing was granted - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In view of the declared law by this Court in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs 2025 (2) TMI 385 - DELHI HIGH COURT and the judgments which followed the same such standard form waivers of SCN or personal hearings have no validity in the eyes of law. The impugned Order-in-Original dated 15th January 2025 is set aside - Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include: 1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the release of goods seized by the Customs Department under the Detention Receipt No. 26696 dated 20th September 2024, and subsequent receipts. 2. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 15th January 2025, which ordered the absolute confiscation of goods and imposed a penalty on the Petitioner, was legally sustainable given the alleged lack of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and personal hearing. 3. Whether the Petitioner's rights under the principles of natural justice were violated due to the alleged standard format waiver of SCN and personal hearing. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Entitlement to Release of Seized Goods The relevant legal framework involves the Customs Act, 1962, which governs the procedures for the detention and confiscation of goods. The Petitioner claimed that the goods were gifts purchased for a family wedding and that he went through the Red Channel, indicating a willingness to declare the goods and pay any applicable duty. The Respondent, however, contended that the Petitioner attempted to pass through the Green Channel, implying an intention to evade customs duty. The Court found that the procedure followed by the Customs Department in detaining the goods was flawed, as it relied on a standard format waiver of the SCN and personal hearing, which lacked legal validity. The Court emphasized the necessity of providing an SCN and a personal hearing to the Petitioner, aligning with the principles of natural justice. 2. Legality of the Order-in-Original The Order-in-Original was challenged on the grounds that it was issued without serving an SCN and without granting a personal hearing to the Petitioner. The Court referred to the precedent set in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, which held that standard form waivers of SCN or personal hearings are invalid. The Court reiterated that natural justice requires a proper declaration, consciously signed by the person concerned, and an opportunity for a hearing. The Court concluded that the Order-in-Original was unsustainable in law due to the absence of an SCN and a hearing, thereby setting aside the order and directing a fresh hearing. 3. Violation of Natural Justice The Court underscored the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, which mandate that individuals should not be condemned unheard. The reliance on printed waivers was deemed a violation of these principles, as it failed to provide the Petitioner with a fair opportunity to present his case. The Court's interpretation was rooted in ensuring compliance with Section 124 of the Customs Act, which requires the issuance of an SCN and an opportunity for a hearing. The Court found that the detention and subsequent order were contrary to law due to the procedural deficiencies. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 15th January 2025 was set aside due to the lack of an SCN and personal hearing, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that "natural justice is not merely lip-service" and must be complied with in both letter and spirit. The Court directed that the Petitioner be afforded a hearing before the concerned official, allowing him to submit written submissions and necessary documents. The customs duty would be determined, and a new order would be passed by the Adjudicating Authority within two months after the hearing. The judgment reinforces the core principle that procedural fairness and the right to be heard are fundamental to the adjudication process, and any deviation from these principles renders administrative orders unsustainable in law.
|
