2000 (4) TMI 684 - AT - Customs

Tribunal orders fresh decision due to natural justice violation under Customs Act, 1962.

The Tribunal found the pre-deposit amount sufficient under the Customs Act, 1962, and dispensed with penalties. The case was remanded for a new decision ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Adjudication order Issues involved:Prayer for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty amount and personal penalties.Violation of principle of natural justice due to non-disclosure of Fax Message.Adjudication based on smuggled gold bars claim and markings.Sufficiency of pre-deposit under Customs Act, 1962.Dispensing with pre-deposit condition for penalties.Remand for de novo decision by Commissioner with disclosure of Fax Message.Continuation of deposited amount and bond during pendency of proceedings.Analysis:The case involved a prayer to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount and personal penalties totaling Rs. 26,17,906.93 and Rs. 5 lakhs, respectively, on gold T.T. Bars. The appellants had already deposited over Rs. 8,00,000, which was deemed sufficient under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The other two applicants sought dispensation of pre-deposit for their penalties of Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal found the pre-deposit amount adequate and dispensed with the condition for penalties, remanding the case for a fresh decision by the Commissioner due to a violation of natural justice concerning the non-disclosure of a crucial Fax Message.The argument put forth by the appellants' advocate highlighted a significant issue of the Fax Message received from M/s. Brinks Arya, which was crucial evidence not disclosed to the appellants before adjudication. The Tribunal agreed that the non-disclosure violated the principle of natural justice, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the case for a fresh decision by the Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing the appellants with an opportunity to defend themselves regarding the Fax Message, ensuring a fair adjudication process.The respondent countered by asserting that the case involved smuggling, citing discrepancies in markings on the seized gold bars compared to the actual imported bars. Despite acknowledging the oversight in not showing the Fax Message to the appellants, the respondent argued that the Commissioner acted within a time-bound frame as directed by the High Court. However, the Tribunal found the violation of natural justice to be significant, warranting a remand for a new decision by the Commissioner.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, directing the Commissioner to make a fresh decision after disclosing the Fax Message to the appellants and providing them with an opportunity to present their defense. The Tribunal also instructed the appellants to maintain the deposited amount and bond during the pending proceedings, ensuring compliance with the High Court's order regarding the release of the gold bars subject to deposit and penalty conditions.