SIDDHARTHA ASIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today the Appeal filed by M/s. Siddhartha Asia Ltd. is posted for admission. For the reasons recorded below I admit the Appeal and take up the same for hearing with the consent of both the sides.

(2.) Shri Piyush Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the business of import and trading of various merchandise; that they imported 14.4 M.T. Polycarbonate sheets under Bill of Entry No. 253209, dated 25 -9 -2001 which was assessed to duty at enhanced value of US 1040 per MT, though the transaction value was US 950 per MT and the goods were cleared on execution of Bond for provisional assessment; that the DRI Officers seized document and 3 computers from their premises on 5 -10 -2001 and 37 rolls of Polycarbonate sheet (approx. 3500 Kg) lying in godown on 6 -10 -2001; that DRI Officers searched the premises of their dealers at Delhi and Mumbai and seized stocks of polycarbonate sheets which were duly imported, duty paid and sold to the dealers under proper documents. The learned Advocate, further submitted that the Appellants approached the Department on a number of times for return of the seized documents and goods but to no avail; that DRI issued a show cause notice dated 11/19 -3 -2002 proposing extension of time as they had neither submitted the desired documents nor had sent any person knowing secret pass words for scanning of the CPU, testing process would take some more time since the requested test was of highly technical nature and overseas investigation report was awaited; that the notice was received by them on 26 -3 -2002 which gave them time of 10 days for filing of written reply; that, however, the Adjudicating Authority fixed the personal hearing on 28 -3 -2002; that they, in their letter dated 27 -3 -2002 submitted on 28 -3 -2002, sought time for filing a written reply and for adjourning the hearing to 1 -4 -2002; that the case was adjudicated ex parte on 30 -3 -2002 by extending the time limit of six month by another six months.

(3.) The learned Advocate contended that the impugned Order has been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice; that as per notice which was received by them on 26 -3 -2000, they had the time for filing reply up to 4 -4 -2002 and thus passing of impugned Order smacks of prejudice and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has fixed the matter for personal hearing which was not attended by the Appellants and the impugned Order extending the time for issue of notice has been passed as the Appellants had not co -operated in the investigation.