2016 (10) TMI 860 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority - smuggling of gold - provisional release of gold - extension of period for issuance of show cause notice was sought for and the adjudicating authority came to a conclusion that the gold is liable for absolute confiscation. Whether such act of adjudicating authority justified? - Held that - the adjudicating authority while passing order only for extension of period for issuance of show cause notice, made a reference and observed that the gold seized is liable for absolute confiscation. However, without any show cause notice proposing specifically absolute confiscation of gold, giving finding that the seized gold is liable for absolute confiscation, is incorrect on the part of the adjudicating authority. Moreover, unless the principles of natural justice are complied with, the adjudicating authority is not supposed to decide the confiscability of the seized goods - as regards the issue of provisional release of the seized goods, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority - As regards the order for extension of period for issuance of show cause notice in respect of seized gold, the same stands intact. Appeal disposed off - matter remanded.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order extending period for issuance of show cause notice; Provisional release of seized goods.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Order Extending Period for Show Cause Notice:
The appellant challenged the order extending the period for issuance of show cause notice regarding seized goods. The appellant did not contest the extension but sought modification to allow provisional release of the seized goods. The Tribunal noted the absence of a challenge to the extension itself.

2. Provisional Release of Seized Goods:
The main issue was whether the seized gold could be released provisionally. The adjudicating authority determined that the gold concealed in parcels amounted to smuggling and was prohibited, leading to absolute confiscation. The appellant argued that since gold import was permitted, provisional release should be granted. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their case.

3. Arguments and Findings:
The appellant's counsel argued for provisional release based on the legality of gold import and the provision under Section 110(a) for release on bond with security. The Revenue's representative maintained that the seized gold was liable for absolute confiscation, citing various judgments in support.

4. Tribunal's Decision and Remand:
The Tribunal found the adjudicating authority's decision premature as it declared the gold liable for confiscation without issuing a show cause notice. Emphasizing the importance of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the authority for a fresh decision on provisional release, considering all relevant judgments. The order extending the period for the show cause notice remained unchanged.

5. Final Disposition:
The appeal was disposed of through remand to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on the provisional release issue. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in court on 27.9.2016, resolving the matter comprehensively.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal's findings, and the ultimate decision to remand the case for further consideration, ensuring a fair and just resolution in accordance with legal principles.