9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order, denial of rightful defense, pre-determination of mind by the Commissioner, non-speaking order, lack of essential ingredients for penalty imposition, reliance on confessions, diversion of goods, denial of cross-examination, rush in passing the order, imposition of duty and penalty without proper consideration. Analysis: The judgment involves multiple issues arising from stay applications and appeals against an order of the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. The appellants, including a DEEC license holder and others alleged to have diverted goods, challenged the order on various grounds. The first issue raised was the violation of natural justice principles due to the preponement of the hearing date, denying the appellants adequate time to prepare their defense. The appellants argued that their submissions were not considered, and the order was passed with a pre-determined mindset, leading to the imposition of duty and penalty without proper examination of relevant documents. The second issue highlighted by the appellants was the lack of essential ingredients for penalty imposition under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. They contended that there was no finding of pre-concert or knowledge to justify the penalty. Additionally, the order was criticized for being non-speaking and failing to consider the retraction of statements made during the proceedings. The appellants sought a review of the order based on these deficiencies. On the other hand, the department argued in favor of upholding the duties and penalties imposed, citing confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act and corroborative evidence of diversion of goods imported under the DEEC scheme. The department emphasized the financial implications of misusing duty-free exemptions and opposed any leniency, asserting that the order was not rushed and cross-examination was not denied. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found several flaws in the Commissioner's order. Firstly, it noted the unjustified rush in advancing the hearing date despite requests for adjournment, indicating a violation of natural justice principles. Secondly, the Tribunal criticized the failure to consider important submissions and the denial of cross-examination, deeming the order deficient. Lastly, the Tribunal highlighted the absence of findings regarding pre-concert or knowledge essential for penalty imposition, leading to the conclusion that the order was legally flawed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision following the principles of natural justice. The stay petitions were disposed of accordingly, and the appeals were allowed by remand, addressing the issues raised by the appellants and rectifying the legal deficiencies in the original order.
|
