Judgment sets aside Order-in-Appeal, remands due to Customs Rules violation. New evidence considered without following Rule 5.

The judgment set aside the Order-in-Appeal and remanded the matter back to the original authority due to the violation of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not follow Rule 5 by considering new evidence not presented before the adjudicating authority. The appellant's claim of illegal importation was not substantiated, as the currency was brought by the respondent's Son-in-Law during a visit to India. The respondent admitted to illegal possession of foreign currency. Both parties were granted the opportunity to produce evidence, and the respondent was to have a personal hearing before the original authority.

---

---

Issues: Violation of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982

Analysis:
The appeal in this case is against the Order-in-Appeal dated 20-3-2007. The issue raised was regarding the Commissioner (Appeals) not following Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The appellant argued that the Commissioner relied on evidence not before the adjudicating authority, while the respondent claimed that the seized foreign currency was legally in their possession.

Upon considering the submissions and perusing the records, it was found that the impugned order did not substantiate the charge of illegal import of foreign currency. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no corroborative evidence of illegal importation and that the currency was brought by the respondent's Son-in-Law during a visit to India. However, it was noted that the respondent had admitted to illegal possession of foreign currency in a statement.

The adjudicating authority had previously held that the respondent did not file a reply to the show cause notice or attend the personal hearing. The evidence relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) was produced for the first time before him, violating Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. Therefore, the impugned order was deemed incorrect as new evidence not presented before the original authority was considered.

The judgment set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for reconsideration. Both parties were given the opportunity to produce evidence, and the respondent was to be granted a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent's advocate agreed to appear before the adjudicating authority when the personal hearing was scheduled.

---