2012 (8) TMI 539 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit alleged that appellant firm has obtained DEEC licence from DGFT by forging the quantity/weight/blend of the fabrics on the shipping bills and obtained that DEEC licence for higher quantity Held that - All the relied upon documents/non-relied upon documents have not been supplied to the appellants. When, there is an offence of forgery of the documents, the documents which have been forged and how it has been forged is to be supplied to the person against whom the allegation has been made for rebuttal - there is a violation of principles of natural justice by non-supply of relied upon/non-relied upon documents - matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to allow the inspection of original records to the appellants or their counsel and give copies of the documents which the appellant may ask after the inspection of the records under his signature and thereafter pass the orders in accordance with the law

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of relied upon documents.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed appeals along with stay applications, but after hearing both sides, the tribunal decided to dispose of the appeals without the pre-deposit of demands/penalties. The case involved the appellants exporting fabrics and obtaining DEEC licenses from DGFT based on allegedly forged shipping bills. Show-cause notices were issued, and the impugned orders were challenged in the appeals.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the original shipping bills and photocopies, crucial for the case, were not provided during the show-cause notice issuance in 1997. Despite multiple requests for inspection and document supply, the requests were denied, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. Reference was made to a Bombay High Court case highlighting the importance of supplying relied upon documents for a fair adjudication process.

3. The respondent's representative contended that the documents were indeed supplied, as indicated in the impugned order. It was argued that the appellants' defense was weak, and they attempted to delay the adjudication process by claiming non-supply of documents.

4. The tribunal considered both sides' arguments and the Bombay High Court's previous ruling emphasizing the significance of providing essential documents for a fair trial. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the supply of documents, concluding that a violation of natural justice occurred due to the non-supply of relied upon documents. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for proper document inspection and provision to allow the appellants a fair opportunity to present their case.

5. The tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for compliance with natural justice principles resulted in the disposal of all appeals and stay applications in the manner outlined in the judgment.