9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, Burden of proof on department, Discharge of burden by the appellant
In the present case, the appellants filed appeals against an adjudication order confiscating contraband goods and imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The main issue raised was the violation of principles of natural justice, as contended by the appellant's advocate. The advocate argued that the department failed to consider documents produced by the appellant to prove licit importation of goods, leading to a lack of reasonable belief for seizure. On the other hand, the J.D.R. argued that the conduct of the appellants, including the erasure of foreign markings on goods, justified the seizure. The tribunal analyzed the evidence and precedent, concluding that there were prima facie materials for the officers to believe the goods were smuggled, shifting the burden of proof onto the appellants. Regarding the discharge of burden by the appellant, the tribunal found that the adjudicating officer failed to consider crucial vouchers and cash memos produced by the appellants. The officer dismissed the documents as manipulated and an afterthought without proper examination. The tribunal highlighted the importance of considering all evidence and providing reasons for disbelief, citing a relevant precedent. Due to the denial of principles of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a fresh hearing, directing the adjudicating authority to consider the documents, grant a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a specified timeframe.
|
