TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Impugned order violated natural justice by denying proper hearing intervals and ignoring petitioner's reply under CBIC Circular</h1> <h3>M/s Variety Gift & Stationery Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 2), Chennai</h3> M/s Variety Gift & Stationery Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 2), Chennai - TMI ISSUES: Whether the impugned order-in-original was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.Whether the respondent adhered to the Board Circular No.1053/2/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017, specifically Clause 14.3, regarding affording three personal hearings with sufficient intervals.Whether the reply sent by the petitioner to the show cause notice was duly considered in the impugned order-in-original.Whether the classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) was correctly determined by the respondent.Whether the imposition of differential duty, interest under Section 28AA, confiscation, redemption fine under Section 125(1), and penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The impugned order-in-original was passed in violation of principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's reply dated 18.05.2024 and by not adhering to Clause 14.3 of the Board Circular, which mandates three personal hearings with sufficient intervals.The respondent did not comply with the mandatory requirement under Clause 14.3 of the Board Circular dated 10.03.2017, as the personal hearings were fixed on three consecutive days (09.10.2024, 10.10.2024, and 11.10.2024) without sufficient interval of time, thus violating the procedural safeguards.The respondent's statement in the impugned order that no reply was received from the petitioner constitutes a 'total non application of mind' since the reply was submitted on 18.05.2024 and received on 20.05.2024, well before the order dated 17.10.2024.The impugned order-in-original is quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, after affording three personal hearings with sufficient intervals and adhering to the principles of natural justice.The Court did not decide on the correctness of the classification or the imposition of duties, interest, confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty, leaving these issues to be reconsidered by the respondent on remand. RATIONALE: The Court applied the mandatory provisions of Clause 14.3 of the Board Circular No.1053/2/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017, which requires at least three opportunities of personal hearing with sufficient intervals and separate communications for each hearing to ensure a fair opportunity to be heard.The principle of natural justice mandates that the adjudicating authority must consider all replies submitted by the noticee before passing an order; failure to do so amounts to non-application of mind and procedural unfairness.The Court reaffirmed prior rulings that the directions contained in the cited Board Circular are mandatory and not directory, emphasizing strict compliance.The consecutive scheduling of personal hearings without sufficient intervals was held to be non-compliant with the Circular's requirements, undermining the fairness of the adjudication process.No dissent or doctrinal shift was noted; the Court followed established legal principles on natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
