2011 (2) TMI 442 - HC - Customs

Appeal allowed, remitted for new decision. Timely communication emphasized for fair process.

AKHLAQ MOHAMMAD NAQVI Versus UNION OF INDIA

AKHLAQ MOHAMMAD NAQVI Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2011 (269) E.L.T. 478 (All.) Issues Involved:1. Illegal import and smuggling of goods.2. Confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.3. Admissibility and validity of statements recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act.4. Procedural delays and the right to appeal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Illegal Import and Smuggling of Goods:The case involved the interception of a passenger at Amausi Airport, Lucknow, carrying contraband goods without declaration. The goods included cameras, saffron, Bluetooth devices, dental needles, memory cards, and wristwatches, valued at Rs. 16,19,000/-. The passenger admitted in his statement under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, that he purchased these goods in Dubai for sale in India. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, as they were believed to be illegally imported for commercial exploitation, evading customs duty.2. Confiscation and Penalties under the Customs Act, 1962:The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the seized goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act but allowed an option for redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- and customs duty of Rs. 5,77,983/-. Personal penalties were imposed on several individuals, including Rs. 6,00,000/- on the passenger under Section 112(b), Rs. 3,00,000/- on another individual, Rs. 1,00,000/- on an advocate, and Rs. 50,000/- on a customs officer under Section 112(a).3. Admissibility and Validity of Statements Recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act:The passenger's statements recorded under Sections 107 and 108 were crucial in establishing the intent to smuggle goods for monetary gain. The statements revealed frequent trips to Dubai and attempts to sell goods in India at higher prices. The investigation also uncovered a network involving other individuals and customs officials facilitating the smuggling activities.4. Procedural Delays and the Right to Appeal:The appellant faced procedural delays in receiving the order-in-original, which affected the filing of the appeal. The order was initially sent by registered post but returned unserved. The appellant filed an application under the RTI Act and a writ petition to obtain the order copy, which was eventually provided on 15-11-2007. The appeal was filed on 19-11-2007, within the permissible period from the date of service of the order. The court found the delay in providing the order copy by the respondents to be unreasonable and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the Commissioner Appeal for a decision on merits.Conclusion:The court set aside the orders of the Commissioner Appeal and the Appellate Tribunal, remitting the matter back to the Commissioner Appeal to decide on the merits, considering the appeal to be filed in time. The decision emphasized the importance of timely communication of orders and the right to a fair appeal process. The court clarified that it did not enter into the merits of the adjudicating authority's order and directed the Commissioner Appeal to decide independently within two months.Final Judgment:The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner Appeal to restore the appeal to its original number and decide it on merits, considering it to be filed within the stipulated time. The Commissioner Appeal was directed to take an independent decision expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the court's order.