2001 (10) TMI 400

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [Order]. -  This appeal has arisen for admission today. Having examined the records and heard both the sides, I am inclined to dispose of this appeal finally at this stage. 2. It appears from the records that the appellants placed orders for importation of precious stones from Hong-kong. The foreign suppliers, acting upon such orders, sent to the appellants at Jaipur two mail bag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and that the importer is liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Act. However, notice for confiscation of the goods under Section 124 of the Customs Act could not be issued within the period of six months (from the date of seizure) prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act. Hence the Commissioner of Customs proposed to extend the time by invoking the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. 3. Heard both sides. The Advocate, Shri D.K. Rana submits that the impugned proceedings are unsustainable in law for violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the show-cause notice dated 22-2-2001 was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner even before serving the notice on the noticee. Ld. Advocate submits that the notice was received by the party only on 3-3-2001. In sup....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 27-2-2001. A period of 5 days cannot be considered to be a reasonable period, by any standards, for the intended purpose. To ask the party to adduce evidence is one thing, but to afford them an opportunity of personal hearing before taking final decision is another thing. The Commissioner appears to have failed to distinguish between the two, and this led to the mishap of adjudication. 4.&emsp....