COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. M.K. SHIPPING SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai ( : 2012 (284) E.L.T. 433 (Tribunal)). The Tribunal was seized off the appeal which was preferred by the original appellant M.K. Shipping Services -Respondent before us. That was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai dated 18 -8 -2011.

(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue before us that the Tribunal was considering the application for stay of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai and impugned in the appeal. However, the Tribunal took up the appeal itself for final hearing and disposed it of by a cryptic order. The Tribunal has rendered contradictory and inconsistent findings. If the Tribunal was of the opinion that the respondent was denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend itself, then, the Tribunal should have restricted its finding and conclusion to this aspect and left the matter to be decided again and in accordance with law by the Competent Authority. However, the Tribunal has gone ahead and accepted the version of the respondent by omitting from consideration certain documents. The proceedings are of cancellation of licence as Customs House Agent. That was because the role played by the said agent in mis -declaration of goods under export in respect of a shipping bill. The goods were declared as "Basmati Rice" however, the test report and finding of the Competent Authority/Laboratory was that the product/goods were non -basmati rice. It is in these circumstances that the Customs House Regulations were stated to be violated. It is in that regard an inquiry was commenced. In the inquiry, several arguments were noted. The Tribunal has taken note of grievance of the respondent that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. The Tribunal has, in referring to that argument, also expressed an opinion on the merits of the charges. The Tribunal should not have done that and if it was inclined to do so, it should have called for the entire record and proceedings before the adjudicating authority. Thereafter, it should have given opportunity to both sides to rely on the material produced. Thus, if the Tribunal was inclined to set aside the order on merits, then the course that should have been adopted by the Tribunal was to give complete opportunity to the appellant before us to substantiate the charge and equally to the respondent to deny the same. Instead, the Tribunal has rendered perfunctory findings and conclusions. It is in one breath held that the Investigating officers whose cross -examination was sought for by the Customs House Agent, never presented themselves for cross -examination during the inquiry proceedings thereby denying the respondent before us reasonable opportunity to prove his version or to substantiate his defence. The documents have been referred to and in Mr. Jetly's complaint neither of them have been considered extensively leave alone their contents, before recording their opinion that none of the charges imputed have any basis. Therefore, he submits that the appeal deserves admission and on the substantial questions of law formulated in the Memo of Appeal.

(3.) THE request is, therefore the appeal should not be entertained and rather be dismissed.