Petitioner Granted Appeal on Pre-Deposit; Attached Properties Accepted as Security

The Court upheld the Order in Original (OIO) but allowed the petitioner to appeal by providing the required pre-deposit amount. The appellate authority was instructed to accept the attached properties as security and decide the appeal fairly. The Court clarified that its decisions would not impact the parties' rights in the appeal process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Requirement of pre-deposit for appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act.
4. Right to cross-examination.
5. Confiscation of gold and imposition of penalties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI):
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue the show cause notice, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Cannon India Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, which held that only a "proper officer" as defined under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act could issue such notices. The Court noted that the Additional Director General of DRI was not the proper officer to exercise the power under Section 28(4), making the initiation of recovery proceedings invalid. However, the Court preferred not to venture into this aspect, suggesting that the appellate authority could adjudicate on this issue.

2. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that there was a gross violation of principles of natural justice as the show cause notice was served on his wife and not him. He also claimed that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself or cross-examine witnesses. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was not present during the adjudication of the show cause notice but found that notices for personal hearings were served multiple times. The Court concluded that there was no prima facie breach of principles of natural justice but allowed the petitioner to raise these issues before the appellate authority.

3. Requirement of Pre-deposit for Appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act:
The petitioner contended that he was financially incapable of making the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty amount required for filing an appeal. The Court noted that the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with this requirement. The Court allowed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by furnishing the pre-deposit amount within four weeks and suggested that the value of attached properties could be considered as adequate security.

4. Right to Cross-examination:
The petitioner emphasized the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Kanungo & Company vs. Collector Of Customs, which held that cross-examination is not an absolute right and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Court allowed the petitioner to raise this issue before the appellate authority.

5. Confiscation of Gold and Imposition of Penalties:
The petitioner argued that the confiscation of gold was illegal as gold is not prohibited for import but only restricted. The Court noted that the penalty was imposed based on the statements of co-accused and without independent corroborative evidence. The Court allowed the petitioner to contest the confiscation and penalties before the appellate authority, which could consider the entire factual matrix and legal issues.

Conclusion:
The Court did not interfere with the Order in Original (OIO) but permitted the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by furnishing the pre-deposit amount. The appellate authority was directed to consider the value of attached properties as adequate security and to decide the appeal in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that none of its findings would prejudice the rights of the parties during the adjudication of the appeals.

---