2024 (12) TMI 305 - HC - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice and fair play - availability of alternate remedy of appeal - HELD THAT - This is not a case where we should entertain the petitions rather than relegating the petitioners to avail of alternate appeal remedies. Whether documents were indeed not furnished as claimed, whether such documents were relevant, whether they were relied upon for making the impugned order, whether they were vital to the Petitioner s defence, whether any real prejudice resulted from the alleged non-furnish are all matters that are best examined by the appellate authority. Merely alleging that some documents were not furnished is insufficient in such matters. The impact of the allegedly non-furnished documents also needs to be considered. This is not a case of no notice or no opportunity even going by the allegations in the Petition. At the highest, this is a case where the allegations concern a lack of adequate opportunity. In such a case, the Petitioner must plead and establish prejudice because there is nothing like a mere technical breach of natural justice. Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962, confers substantial powers on the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal is empowered to pass such orders as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying, or annulling the decision or order appealed against. The Tribunal may also refer the case back to the authority that passed such decision or order with such directions as it thinks fit for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. Therefore, considering the scope of powers of the Appellate Tribunal and the facts in the present case, no case is made to entertain these petitions or not relegate the petitioners to avail of the alternate remedy of appeal. The remedy of appeal available to the Petitioner is, thus, efficacious. Petition dismissed, leaving the petitioners free to appeal the impugned order dated 28 June 2024.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order.

Analysis:
The petitioners argued that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice by not furnishing crucial documents, hindering their ability to respond effectively. They contended that this violation should exempt them from the usual appeal process. However, the court noted that the appellate authority is better suited to determine if the alleged non-furnishing of documents was prejudicial to the petitioners' defense. The court emphasized that mere allegations of non-furnishing are insufficient, and the impact of the missing documents must be assessed to establish prejudice. The court highlighted that the petitioners seemed more focused on alleging a lack of natural justice than on presenting a defense.

The court observed that the petitioners were granted multiple opportunities to respond to the show cause notice, and inspections were offered, indicating that they had adequate chances to present their case. The court expressed reluctance to conclude on the breach of natural justice at that stage, emphasizing that the issue required a detailed factual examination by the appellate authority. The court stressed that the appellate authority must assess whether any withheld documents were crucial to the petitioners' defense and determine the presence of prejudice in such cases.

The court referenced Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962, which grants substantial powers to the Appellate Tribunal to confirm, modify, or annul decisions. Considering the broad powers of the Appellate Tribunal and the circumstances of the case, the court found no grounds to entertain the petitions and directed the petitioners to pursue the alternate remedy of appeal. The court highlighted that the remedy of appeal was efficacious and available to the petitioners.

The court criticized the petitioners for making a misleading statement in one of the writ petitions that they had no alternate remedies available, as the impugned order clearly mentioned the option to appeal to CESTAT. The court emphasized that misleading statements about the unavailability of alternate remedies were unacceptable. Referring to a previous case, the court noted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the court directly and declined to entertain the petitions based on this principle.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitions, allowing the petitioners to appeal the impugned order within four weeks. The court directed that the appellate authority should consider the appeals on their merits without considering any limitation issues, as the petitions were filed within the prescribed limitation period. All contentions, except those addressed by the Supreme Court in a specific case, were left open for further consideration.