Court dismisses challenge to order, directs appeal to Tribunal within 2 weeks. Tribunal to decide within 3 months, no remand on natural justice.

The Court found the challenge against the Ext. P10 order legally unsustainable, advising the petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner was directed to appeal within two weeks, with the Tribunal instructed to decide on merits within three months, considering ongoing storage costs. The Tribunal was prohibited from remanding solely on natural justice grounds, allowing the petitioner to raise legal contentions during the appeal hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for a swift resolution to address storage costs and restrict remand on natural justice grounds.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged violation of rules of natural justice in Ext. P10 order by Commissioner of Customs.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an importer of used Digital Multifunction Machines, challenged Ext. P10 order of the Commissioner of Customs directing confiscation of imported goods. The order allowed redemption for re-export on payment of a fine. The petitioner contended a violation of natural justice rules due to lack of further hearing post-reply submission to show cause notice. The Division Bench had earlier directed the petitioner to waive the show cause notice requirement for expeditious adjudication. However, a notice was served post-waiver, leading to the current challenge. The main issue was whether the absence of a subsequent hearing after reply submission invalidated Ext. P10 order on natural justice grounds.

The Court noted the petitioner's waiver of show cause notice, leaving the decision to legal grounds available. The show cause notice limited the grounds for confirming proposals, not affecting the petitioner's rights. The absence of a post-reply hearing did not prejudice the petitioner, as the notice constrained the adjudicating authority's powers. The Court found the challenge against Ext. P10 order legally unsustainable, advising the petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

The petitioner claimed prejudice due to delayed adjudication, seeking clearance for home consumption like similar goods permitted by Customs. Urgency was highlighted, leading the Court to direct the petitioner and directors to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within two weeks. The Tribunal was instructed to decide on merits within three months, considering the ongoing storage costs incurred by the petitioner. As the challenge was based on natural justice violation, the Tribunal was prohibited from remanding the matter solely on this ground, allowing the petitioner to raise legal contentions during the appeal hearing.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with directions for timely appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing a swift resolution due to storage costs and restricting remand on natural justice grounds.

---