9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r hearing both sides in the matter, waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000/- was granted and the appeal itself was taken-up for hearing the case on being satisfied that there is violation of principles of natural justice in the matter. 3. The short facts of the case are that acting on credible information that one person would be arriving from Singapore by Air India flight No. IC 401 on 20-2-1996 and that the said person was likely to carry some contraband goods and bring them out without declaring the same to the Customs Authorities at Bangalore Airport, the officers of DRI Bangalore kept a watch in front of the arrival hall of the Bangalore Airport. After the flight s arrival at about 00.30 hours on 20-2-1996, the appellant was identified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by appellants and specifically asking for issue of show cause notice and granting him hearing in the matter. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the plea of violation of principles of natural justice and held that the Asstt. Commissioner was justified in proceeding on the basis of earlier letter dated 22-2-1996 signed by the appellant which was sent through DRI . 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the said letter was taken under duress by the DRI authorities and therefore he had resiled statement and had addressed a clear letter to the Commissioner seeking for issue of show cause notice and also a personal hearing. In such a circumstance, the authorities are bound to have issued a show cause notice and also should ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re there is no infirmity in the order. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions, it is seen from the Order-in-Original that the statement of the appellant was recorded on 20-2-1996 and thereafter he was detained and produced before the Magistrate . The letter dated 22-2-1996 relied upon by the Additional Commissioner has been forwarded by DRI and that letter was not directly given or furnished to the adjudicating authority. In the scheme of the Act, it is the adjudicating authority who is required to issue the show cause notice. Even before the order-in-original was passed, appellant at the first instance itself by his letter dated 4-3-1996 which has been duly acknowledged by the Commissioner of Customs stated that he had brought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 22nd February, 1996, on the above subject matter, which was taken by DRI, Bangalore. I would like to submit that the aforesaid letter was obtained from me under mental tension and duress. However, now I request you to kindly provide me with opportunity to defend myself either personally or through my counsel for which I pray a notice and personal hearing be afforded to me. That apart, I submit that till date I have not received the copy of the statement and Mahazar recorded by DRI, Bangalore." 10. On a reading of the above letter, it cannot be understood that the word notice was referred to issue of show cause notice. It may mean notice of personal hearing. In any event of the matter, the authorities were bound to have is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
