2014 (9) TMI 860 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Whether the Tribunal was justified in disposing of the appeal itself at the stage of consideration of an application for stay and waiver of redemption fine and penalty amount - Held that - Tribunal should not have expressed any final opinion and arrived at any conclusion. If it was inclined to direct waiver of pre-deposit of fine and penalty amount then the Tribunal should have held that its tentative and prima facie view is that this is not a case of wilful act by the respondent but only a negligence. The Tribunal should not have without referring to the entire record concluded that the case is not of misdeclaration of goods in the shipping bills wilfully but by sheer negligence. Such finding cannot be recorded unless the versions of both sides have been considered in detail. The reasons have to be assigned for upholding one of the version. In doing that the Tribunal must refers to rival contentions the documents produced by both sides with there contents. This entire exercise is not a mere formality. The Tribunal should be aware of the basic and fundamental principle that justice should not only be done but seen to be done. In the present case the Revenue has not agreed for final disposal of the appeal and the Tribunal did not bother whether both the parties are agreeable to the course which it is going to adopt. The Tribunal took up the appeal for final disposal on its own and has disposed of the same in a manner which is most unsatisfactory and contrary to law - order set aside - however order passed by the Tribunal shall be treated as one disposing of the application for stay/ waiver of pre-deposit of redemption fine and penalty. - Decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in disposing of the appeal at the stage of considering an application for stay and waiver of redemption fine and penalty amountRs.
2. Whether the appeal could have been disposed of without adverting to the rival contentions and without assigning reasons in detailRs.
3. Whether the reasons assigned by the Tribunal were complete, satisfactory, and cogent in the given facts and circumstancesRs.

Analysis:
1. The High Court examined the Tribunal's order disposing of the appeal at the stage of waiver of pre-deposit and penalty. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision lacked a detailed consideration of both sides' contentions and the entire record. The Court found that the Tribunal should not have arrived at a final opinion without a thorough review of the case. It emphasized the importance of considering rival contentions and documents before making a decision. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's approach was unsatisfactory and contrary to law, as it did not ensure justice was seen to be done.

2. The Court, after reviewing the memo of appeal and its annexures, criticized the Tribunal for not maintaining impartiality and for prematurely concluding the case was not a willful act but negligence. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal's duty was to provide reasons for its decision based on a detailed examination of both parties' versions. It emphasized that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done. The Court noted that the Tribunal's failure to consider the Revenue's disagreement for final disposal of the appeal and its unilateral decision-making process were unacceptable.

3. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the appeal to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that the Tribunal's order should be treated as an interim order, continuing to operate during the appeal's pendency. The Court ensured that the order did not affect the merits of the controversy and kept all contentions open for both sides. The Court's decision aimed to uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and thorough consideration of all aspects of the case during the appeal process.