9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) of the Customs Act. Further, the goods sent by the appellants have been confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The appellants strongly challenge the impugned order. 3. Shri K. Parameswaran, the learned Advocate who appeared for the appellants, urged the following points :- (i) The appellants company inter alia is engaged in the business of trading of various types of computer parts, spares and accessories. They received orders from various buyers including from M/s. Suntech, Bangalore, for purchase of computer spares during 2002. Due to oversight, the appellants wrongly sent a shipment meant for another party to the said M/s. Suntech, Bangalore. The appellants sent a letter dated 17-10-2002 to the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing been issued. (ii) The fixing of personal hearing on 25-5-2004 had been sought to be communicated through the High Commission of India in Singapore. But, no such communication had been received by the appellant at any point of time. The appellant is not aware of any such action alleged to have been taken by the Customs Authorities in India. (iii) Even from the departmental appeal filed in CESTAT on 14-5-2003, it is seen that there is no mention of the addendum having been issued. (iv) The requirements of Section 124 of the Customs Act have not been fulfilled in toto. (v) The impugned order is an ex parte order and passed in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as no opportunity had been given to refute the ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to have been issued later on the grounds that the appellant had abetted in certain actions which render the goods liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. It is seen that the appellants had not received the said addendum. Revenue is not in a position to prove proper service of the Show Cause Notice and also the addendum. In the case of CC v. Jayant Oil Mills (cited supra), it has been held that the giving of notice is not complete unless and until it reaches the person concerned or its actual tender. This decision has relied on the Apex Court s decision in the case of K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singh Gowda - AIR 1966 SC 330. In the case of A.F. Gani v. CC, Madras (cited supra), it has been held that under Section 124 of the Customs Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
