Duty drawback recovery order challenged for alleged lack of hearing; ex parte order upheld, writ refused, appeal allowed within deadline.

An assessee challenged an ex parte Order-in-Original directing recovery of duty drawback as violating natural justice. The HC held that no breach occurred because the authority afforded three personal hearing opportunities and specifically sought documents, but the assessee repeatedly failed to attend and did not furnish the requested material despite seeking time by email; hence writ interference with the ex parte order was refused. However, in the interest of justice, and noting that interim stay had operated during the writ proceedings, the HC directed the assessee to avail the alternate statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within a court-fixed time, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1) Whether the impugned Order-in-Original suffered from violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that it was passed ex parte, despite issuance of personal hearing notices and the petitioner's conduct in not attending hearings or seeking an alternate date.

2) Whether the Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere with the Order-in-Original, or instead require the petitioner to pursue the alternate statutory appellate remedy, and what protective directions (including timeline and coercive action restraint) should govern such course.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Alleged violation of principles of natural justice due to ex parte adjudication

Legal framework: The Court examined the allegation of breach of principles of natural justice in the context of whether adequate hearing opportunities were afforded and whether the petitioner availed them.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated as undisputed that three personal hearing opportunities were afforded and that personal hearing notices were sent to the petitioner. The petitioner did not attend any of the scheduled hearings and also did not send a reply requesting another suitable date for personal appearance. The Court further noted that the petitioner had sought time by email to furnish documents (including Bank Realisation Certificates and related statements), but found that, despite sufficient time and opportunities, the documents were not furnished to the respondent. On these facts, the Court held that non-participation by the petitioner, despite repeated hearing opportunities, could not be converted into a ground to allege denial of natural justice.

Conclusion: The Court conclusively held that principles of natural justice were not violated by the respondent and declined to interfere with the impugned Order-in-Original on that ground.

Issue 2: Interference in writ jurisdiction versus directing the petitioner to avail alternate statutory remedy; consequential directions

Legal framework: The Court considered the availability of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and structured relief to enable the petitioner to invoke that remedy.

Interpretation and reasoning: Having found no violation of natural justice and noting the petitioner's failure to attend hearings, the Court held it was not inclined to interfere with the Order-in-Original in writ jurisdiction. At the same time, in the interest of justice, and considering that the petitioner had enjoyed interim protection during the writ proceedings, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal within a fixed timeframe, subject to compliance with mandatory pre-deposit. The Court also issued a protective direction that no coercive steps be taken for execution of the Order-in-Original until the appellate authority passed final orders, and fixed a timeline for disposal of the appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with directions: the petitioner must file the statutory appeal within 30 days of receipt of the order with mandatory pre-deposit; the appellate authority must entertain and decide it on merits within six months; and no coercive steps shall be taken until final appellate orders are passed.

---