2007 (1) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls are that the appellants had mis-declared the quantity of goods imported by him and the value of the goods which was imported by him. On this presumption, the goods were detained and subsequently by the impugned order confiscated and demand of duty was confirmed on the appellant along with the imposition of penalties. The learned advocate submits that the question of mis-declaring the goods does not arise because the goods were found to be as declared. It is also his submission that the Revenue authorities had drawn samples of the goods, which were imported in all three cases and sent for test. As the test reports were not given to the appellant, the whole order-in-original seems to be passed without hearing their side of case. It is also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant after following the procedure as laid down for provisional release of the goods. 5. We find that order-in-original has been issued in very hurried manner without following any principles of natural justice. The charge of mis-declaration of value and quantity is a serious one. This charge should have been concluded only after hearing the appellant or his representative by the adjudicating authority. In the absence of any finding in the order that the appellant had been given a chance to represent their case, the impugned order is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the adjudication proceedings, following the principles of natural justice is the most important issue, if not followed vitiates the whole o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the said provision was for public benefit and could not be waived. It held that it is true that such benefit enacted under the said proviso covered a class of tenants, still the said protection would be available to a tenant only as an individual, hence, it gave the tenant concerned a locus poenitentiae to avail the benefit or not. It also held that the benefit given under the said section was purely personal to the tenant concerned, hence, such a statutory benefit though mandatory, can be waived by the person concerned. 14. From the ratio laid down by the Privy Council and followed by this Court in the above-cited judgments, it is clear that even though a provision of law is mandatory in its operation if such provision is one which....