LUCKY PLAST LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Thughlakabad, New Delhi vide his Order -in -Orginal dt. 13.11.2000 has confirmed a duty of Rs.3.50,250/ - along with interest on this amount 2 24% P.A. The Commissioner in his order has further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs act, 1962.

(2.) THE present appeal and the Stay Petition are filed against the above order of the Commissioner. Shri V.R. Sethi, Advocate appearing for the appellants refers to that apart of the order, in which, it is stated that the importer was issued a show cause notice dt. 8.8.2000 to show cause why a sum of Rs.4,62,250/ - should not be recovered with the interest @ 24% P.A. from the date of import of goods and who a penalty should not be imposed on them. In that order, it is also stated that the personal hearing was fixed on 11 and 18.9.2000 at 03.00 P.M. However, the importer filed to appear.Consequently, the Commissioner has observed in his order that he has no alternative but to decide the matter on the basis of record available with the Department. The ld. Advocate submits that the said show cause notice dt. 8.8.2000 was received by the party on 16.10.2000, to which the reply was immediately sent on 18.10.2000. It is stated that since the order is passed on 13.11.2000, notwithstanding the non -representation of the appellants for personal hearing before the Commissioner, the contents of the written reply should have been taken into consideration before passing the order by the Adjudicating Authority. It is further contended that the party could not be present for personal hearing fixed by the Commissioner since, the dates of personal hearing were mentioned in the show cause notice itself which was received by them only on 16.10.2000. in support of this contention, the ld. advocate for the appellants has produced the cover under which the show cause notice is stated to have been received by the appellants. The cover bears the postal date stamp dt. 14.10.2000. In view of these facts, it is contended that the order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, it is requested that the matter may be remand for re -consideration and passing de -novo order after taking into account the submission made by the appellants.

(3.) SHRI A.K. Jain, JDR for the respondents has no objection to this course of action to be adopted.