ASHOK KR. GUPTA Vs. CC, LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow confiscating 101 pieces of bearings of foreign origin valued at over Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 111(d) of the Customs Acts. That order was passed in adjudication of a show -cause notice issued to the present appellant, among others, alleging, inter alia, that the aforesaid goods which were seized from a truck intercepted by the officers of Customs on 16.2.99 at Gorakhpur on its way from Bagaha (in Bihar, near the Indo -Nepal border) to Ghaziabad (in U.P.) were smuggled goods dealt with by the appellants and liable to be confiscated under the above provisions of the Customs act. The show -cause notice relied upon a number o documents which were mentioned in the notice itself. The appellant's case is that none of those documents were delivered to them along with the notice. The appellant, therefore, by way of reply to the notice, requested the Commissioner to furnish copies of those documents. The Commissioner maintained that the documents had been furnished along with the show -cause notice itself. However, he supplied copies of all those documents to the appellant under cover of letter dated 18.2.2000, which, according to the memo of appeal, the appellant received on 25.2.2000. Thereafter the Commissioner fixed the matter fore personal hearing to 6.3.2000. On that day, the appellant could not attend to the hearing, while the other noticees were either personally present or represented by Counsel. The Commissioner heard the other paries and passed the impugned order.

(2.) Examined the records and herd both sides. Ld. Advocate, Sh. R. Sudhinder for the appellant submits that, in reply to the notice of hearing of 6.3.2000, the appellant had requested the Commissioner by letter dated 2.3.2000 for adjourned of the hearing by two month on medical grounds. That letter was accompanied by a medical certificate also, which certified that the appellant was suffering form jaundice and was under advice to take rest for two months. That certificate was also dated 2.3.2000. Ld. Advocate submits that the Commissioner, who acknowledged receipt of the request for adjournment accompanied by the medical certificate, did not, however, pay heed to the request and he went ahead with the hearing on 6.23.2000. Ld. Advocate submits that the proceedings of the Commissioner were in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity for submitting a detailed reply to the show -cause notice with reference to the relied -upon documents was given and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellant. Ld. JDR, Sh. J. Singh, on the above aspect, submits that, right form the beginning of the proceedings, the appellant's conduct was evasive and that he did not cooperate with the investigative and adjudicatory proceedings. According to ld. JDR, there was no bonafides in the request of the appellant. Ld. DR, therefore, prays for disposal of the present appeal on its merits, after rejecting the plea of violation of natural justice.

(3.) Considered the above submission. It appears from the records that the matter had been posted for the first time before the Commissioner for personal hearing to 6.3.2000. Admittedly, the appellant had requested for an adjournment on medical grounds evidenced by a doctor's certificate. That request was turned down by the Commissioner on considerations of the appellants past conduct relating to the stage of investigation. This approach of the adjudicating authority was far from fair. The Commissioner did no look into the bonafides of the request for adjournment, nor did he apply his mind to the medical ground raised for such adjournment. I, therefore, find that the principles of natural justice were violated by the Commissioner in deciding the case without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. In view of this position, I have got to remand the matter to the Commissioner. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it is against the present appellant and the appeal is allowed by way of remand with a direction to the Commissioner of Customs to pass fresh speaking order in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. As regards the Counsel's plea that an opportunity also be give to the appellant for submitting a detailed reply to the show -cause notice with reference to the relied -upon documents, there will be a direction to the Commissioner to consider the plea on its merits.