Tribunal sets aside order due to lack of crucial evidence violating natural justice.

The Tribunal determined that the addendum to the show cause notice was not illegal. However, the failure to provide crucial evidence to the appellants violated natural justice principles. As a result, the order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to adhere to natural justice principles.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the second show cause notice.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Legality and sustainability of the finding that the seized goods were attempted to be exported to Bangladesh.
4. Relief entitled to the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Second Show Cause Notice:
The appellants contended that issuing a second show cause notice was illegal and violated the principles of res judicata. However, it was found that the notice dated 16-12-1983 was merely an addendum to the original notice dated 7-11-1983, adding a charge about the confiscability of the boat under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that this addendum did not constitute a second show cause notice and was thus not illegal. Therefore, the authorities did not commit any irregularity or illegality in issuing the addendum.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants argued that the adjudicating authority violated the principles of natural justice by not providing them with the enquiry reports, confirmation from the Textile Licensing Authority, and statements from prominent persons and independent witnesses. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, noting that the Additional Collector relied on evidence and statements that were not furnished to the appellants, thus prejudicing their ability to rebut the evidence. This lack of disclosure violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the order infirm.

3. Legality and Sustainability of the Finding of Attempted Export to Bangladesh:
The Tribunal examined whether the finding that the seized goods were attempted to be exported to Bangladesh was legally correct. It noted that an attempt to commit a crime requires an act done with intent to commit that crime, forming part of a series of acts towards its commission. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority's conclusion was based on evidence not disclosed to the appellants, such as statements from prominent persons and the observation that the goods were labeled for export to Bangladesh. Since these materials were not made available to the appellants, the finding was vitiated by a violation of natural justice.

4. Relief Entitled to the Appellants:
Given the violations of natural justice and the reliance on undisclosed evidence, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 25th January 1984. The case was remanded back to the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong, for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal directed that all materials and statements on which the adjudicating authority proposes to rely should be supplied to the appellants, and the case should be disposed of in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the observations made in the Tribunal's order. The appeals were allowed to this extent.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the issuance of an addendum to the show cause notice was not illegal. However, the adjudicating authority's failure to furnish crucial evidence and statements to the appellants violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to observe the principles of natural justice.

---