1998 (11) TMI 318 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeals against orders passed by the Commr. Customs, Calcutta involving confiscation of diesel engines, imposition of penalties, violation of principles of natural justice, and absolute confiscation of goods.

Confiscation of diesel engines and imposition of penalties:
The appeals involved two separate orders confiscating diesel engines and imposing penalties on various appellants. The appellants argued that the Commissioner's decision to absolutely confiscate the goods during de novo proceedings was unfair, as the earlier order had allowed redemption on payment of a fine. They contended that they should not be disadvantaged for appealing against the initial decision. The appellants cited legal precedents to support their argument that the relief granted to them should not be revoked during de novo proceedings. The appellants also argued that the goods being non-notified should not be absolutely confiscated, and they should have been given the option to redeem them under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants sought to quash the order and remand it to the adjudicating authority for a new decision.

Violation of principles of natural justice:
The appellants raised concerns about the violation of principles of natural justice during the de novo proceedings. They argued that they were not given a reasonable opportunity for personal hearing as requested. The appellants highlighted that the Tribunal had directed the adjudicating authority to allow cross-examination of a key witness, which was not done due to the lack of adequate time provided for the process. The appellants contended that the failure to follow the Tribunal's directions was a breach of natural justice principles.

Decision and Remand:
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' contentions. The Tribunal agreed that the adjudicating authority did not follow the Tribunal's specific directions regarding cross-examination and that the absolute confiscation of goods was unjustified. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the authority to allow cross-examination of the witness, provide an opportunity for the appellants to present their case, and not order absolute confiscation of the diesel engines. The Tribunal emphasized that the remand was limited to these issues and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, arguments presented by both parties, legal precedents cited, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA.