9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Appeal against penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation of seized US $ 7000 without proper notice and hearing. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Penalty Imposed Without Show Cause Notice The appeal concerns the penalty imposed on the respondent under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 without the issuance of a show cause notice or hearing the appellant. The penalty was based on the search warrant bearing the respondent's signature, the panchnama recording the signature, and the respondent's request for the return of Indian currency seized. However, the show cause notice, personal hearing, and order were sent to the address of M/s. Kwality Ice Cream, raising concerns about proper communication and procedural fairness. Issue 2: Lack of Proper Notice and Hearing The Commissioner set aside the penalty, highlighting discrepancies in the address to which the notice was sent and the evidence of dispatching the notice as required by Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner found the department's case weak due to the absence of proper notice and hearing, leading to decisions being made without following due process. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision to uphold the absence of notice and hearing in the proceedings supports the dismissal of the appeal. Issue 3: Upholding Commissioner's Findings The appellate tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's findings that the department's case lacked proper notice and hearing, rendering the decisions made during the proceedings questionable. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, with the option for the appellants to serve a notice and reinstate penalty proceedings. Notably, there was no appeal against the confiscation or the refusal to return Rs. 50,120, and no specific orders were issued on those aspects in this judgment. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of based on the lack of proper notice and hearing in the penalty proceedings under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to due process in imposing penalties and confiscations, reinforcing the significance of providing parties with adequate opportunities to present their case and respond to allegations.
|
