Effective opportunity of hearing justified remand after the appellant was not properly heard before adjudication.

An effective opportunity of hearing is required before adjudication, and repeated notices alone do not cure a denial where the appellant's changed address prevented appearance and was not communicated through the customs house agent. The tribunal declined to examine valuation, confiscation, duty demand, or penalties, and set aside the adjudication order only as against the appellant, remitting the matter for fresh adjudication after a proper hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order deserved to be set aside and the matter remanded because the appellant was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before the original authority.

Analysis: The appellant had not appeared on the dates fixed for personal hearing, but the order itself recorded repeated notices for hearing. The appellate tribunal accepted the explanation that the appellant's address had changed and that the change was not conveyed through the customs house agent. Without entering into the merits of valuation, confiscation, duty demand, or penalties, the tribunal considered that the interests of justice would be met by setting aside the order only as against the appellant and sending the matter back for fresh adjudication after giving a proper hearing.

Conclusion: The denial of an effective hearing warranted remand. The adjudication order was set aside insofar as it concerned the appellant and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after opportunity of hearing.

---