Tribunal Overturns Order, Remands Case for Fair Hearing on Customs Seizure; Emphasizes Natural Justice for Trading Firm.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order, remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation. It determined that the Appellant, a trading company, was denied a fair opportunity to present submissions regarding the interception and seizure of goods by Customs Officers. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of natural justice, requiring the Appellant to be heard properly.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the interception and seizure of disputed goods by Customs Officers, the validity of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to the Appellant, and the lack of opportunity for the Appellant to present their submissions.

Interception and Seizure of Goods:
The Appellant, a trading company, had five containers intercepted at Mundra Port and another seven containers intercepted at MICT Mundra, containing disputed goods like Cigarettes and Metal Scrap bundles. The Customs Officers seized the goods, believing they were liable for confiscation. The Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, adjudicated on the Show Cause Notice confirming the dispute. The Appellant challenged this decision in the present appeal.

Validity of Show Cause Notice:
The Appellant argued that the SCN issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, was time-barred. They contended that the date of seizure of goods was 12.09.2015 and 17.09.2015, and the SCN should have been issued within six months. However, the SCN was issued on 11.08.2016, beyond the extended period, making it time-barred. The Appellant also raised concerns about not being informed of any order passed and questioned the Department's use of the term "importer" in the context of the goods found in the containers.

Lack of Opportunity for Appellant:
During the inquiry, the Appellant's Counsel highlighted that the Customs officers relied on blank bills of lading without proper authentication. The Appellant requested a rescheduling of the personal hearing, emphasizing the importance of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order lacked findings on the Appellant's response to the show cause notice and the rescheduling of the personal hearing. Citing a High Court order, the Tribunal emphasized the need for proper consideration of the Appellant's requests for rescheduling the hearing.

Decision:
After hearing both sides and reviewing the material on record, the Tribunal found that the Appellant should be provided with an opportunity to be heard and present their submissions. Consequently, the impugned Order was set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh consideration of the issues.

(Pronounced in the open court on 08. 03. 2024)

---