9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold bars and imposition of penalty by Additional Collector of Customs, Mumbai. 2. Compliance with Section 124 of the Customs Act regarding notice and opportunity for representation. 3. Adequacy of opportunity given to the appellant to make effective representation. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the order of the Additional Collector of Customs in Mumbai, which confiscated 24 gold bars found in possession of the appellant and imposed a penalty of Rs.60,000. The search leading to the recovery of gold was conducted when the appellant arrived in Mumbai from Delhi. The appellant admitted to carrying the gold, claiming it was given to him by a woman named Asha for a payment of Rs.10,000. 2. The appellant contended that he was not provided with a written notice as required under Section 124 of the Customs Act, which mandates informing the person of the grounds for confiscation or penalty, allowing written representation, and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Additional Collector claimed the appellant waived the written notice and was heard on the same day of interception, without sufficient time to prepare a defense or contact an advocate. The appellant, being a police department employee, faced serious consequences due to the order. 3. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to make an effective representation as required by law. Section 124 allows for oral notice and representation at the discretion of the adjudicating authority, but in this case, the waiver of written notice was not prudent. The Additional Collector, acting as an adjudicating authority, should have ensured a fair process for the appellant, especially considering the serious implications on his career. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Commissioner to re-adjudicate the matter, providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to represent his case and be heard in accordance with the law.
|
