By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 31, 2014: PERHAPS, this may the umpteenth time the Courts have doled out advise for the adjudicating authorities. Hopefully, the New Year may see some concerted efforts by the Board in training their adjudicating authorities the basics of adjudication, beginning with complying with the principles of natural justice – lower appellate authorities may also be included!

No man should be condemned unheard – the legal maxim Audi Alteram Partem

Be that as it may, in the present case the petitioner had imported Materials during the years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and the same were assessed provisionally. The petitioner paid Customs duty at the prevailing rate.

Someone remembered about the pending provisional assessments and SCNs came to be issued in February and March 2010 – i.e after a gap of 3 to 5 years.

Under a special drive launched as per instructions of Jt. Secretary, CBEC, when an order was passed in October 2010 nominating an officer for adjudication, the nominated officer rushed with his job and assessments were finalized in December 2010/January 2011.

Disposal was the priority so even personal hearings were apparently given a bye and differential customs duty of Rs.50 crores came to be confirmed against the petitioner.

Later, coercive action was initiated and letters were issued to the petitioner directing them to pay the sums as confirmed.

Against these letters, Writ Petition was filed before the High Court.

The petitioner submitted that there is complete failure to comply with the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the ordinary remedy of filing an Appeal against the orders would not be efficacious and even if that remedy is resorted to it would be wholly frustrated if the amounts are recovered forcibly.

The counsel for the Revenue submitted that all the contentions raised in the Petition can be raised, considered and decided in appeal by the appellate authority and, therefore, the petition needs to be dismissed.

The High Court inter alia observed –

++ Writ Petition is pending in this Court from 25th November, 2013, now, no useful purpose would be served by relegating the Petitioners to a remedy and which may be barred by limitation;

++ No denial that hearing was not granted – Court, therefore, exercises Writ jurisdiction;

++ Adjudication is serious exercise and business - It cannot be concluded light heartedly, casually and hastily - Merely because show cause notices have been issued and are pending adjudication would not justify a wholesale clearance of the matters pending adjudication and without complying with the minimum requirement of fairness, equity and justice;

++ Proceedings are quasi-judicial and, therefore, a reasoned order was required to be passed;

++ In the peculiar facts of the case, Petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.5 Crores within 8 weeks - if compliance is made and the amount is deposited, then, the personal hearing shall be given and a reasoned order be passed within a period of 12 weeks;

++ Failure to deposit the money will not mean that the Petitioners can then resort to the statutory remedy of filing an Appeal - no coercive action to be initiated in the meantime till the expiry of the period of 8 weeks.

The Petition was disposed of.

(See 2014-TIOL-2425-HC-MUM-CUS)