2016 (1) TMI 835 - AT - Customs

Ex-parte decision - adjudicating authority refused to Adjournment application - Held that - It the interest of justice we are of the considered opinion that matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide the issue again after giving an opportunity of effective personal hearing to the appellants. As appellants have now received all the relied upon documents, they should file their replies to the show cause notice within four weeks. Adjudicating proceedings should be completed preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
1. Opportunity of personal hearing not provided by Adjudicating authority.
2. Admissibility of adjournment request by appellants.
3. Determination of export goods as Muriate of Potash or Potassium Feldspar.
4. Supply of relied upon documents to appellants.
5. Remand of the case to Adjudicating authority for reevaluation.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed appeals against the order issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata, alleging lack of sufficient opportunity for personal hearing. The High Court directed the tribunal to admit the appeal without technicalities and provide photocopies of relied upon documents. The case was extended for disposal multiple times by subsequent orders.

2. The Adjudicating authority fixed a hearing date, but the Bar Council protest prevented it. The appellants requested an adjournment, citing unavailability of relied upon documents. The Allahabad High Court's stance on adjournments was discussed, emphasizing the need to consider genuine grounds. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for reevaluation, allowing appellants to respond to the show cause notice within four weeks.

3. The Revenue argued that detailed information indicated the export goods were Muriate of Potash, not Potassium Feldspar, supported by email correspondence and bank documents. The chain of events was established, leading to the determination that the goods were MOP. The appellants contended that no samples were drawn to verify the goods, presenting a strong case on merits.

4. The appellants received all relied upon documents post the High Court's order, affecting their ability to argue before the Adjudicating authority. The case was remanded to provide an opportunity for effective personal hearing, with a directive to complete adjudicating proceedings within three months of the order. The appeals were allowed for remand, keeping all issues open for further deliberation.

5. In the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to remand the case to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after providing appellants with an opportunity for an effective personal hearing. The appellants were instructed to respond to the show cause notice within a specified time frame, and the adjudicating proceedings were to be completed promptly. The appeals were allowed for remand, and the miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.