1998 (5) TMI 125 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhancement of redemption fine and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Request for waiving pre-deposit of remaining amount.
3. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Decision on remand and directions for further proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) had enhanced the redemption fine and penalty in the case of M/s. CNM Impex. The fine was increased from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 2,08,160 in each case, and the penalty was raised from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 20,820 in each case. The appellant's representative argued that they had already paid a significant portion of the enhanced fine and penalty, which should be considered for waiving the pre-deposit of the remaining amount. The advocate cited Section 128(3) of the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity to present their case against the proposed order.

2. The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the enhancement of the redemption fine was justified based on a judgment by the Delhi High Court in a similar case. The DR also highlighted that financial hardship was not raised in the stay petitions. Regarding the allegation of violation of natural justice, the DR argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had provided an opportunity for a hearing, which the appellants did not avail themselves of.

3. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had requested a postponement of the hearing due to the serious illness of the appellant's son, as communicated via telegram. Despite the absence of a postal receipt for the telegram, the Tribunal considered the circumstances and found that the principles of natural justice were not followed in the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, with clear directions to provide a fair opportunity of hearing to M/s. CNM Impex without seeking adjournment. The Tribunal allowed both appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in the adjudicatory process.