ORDER
D.N. Panda, Member (J)
1. Although several opportunities were given to the Appellant as early as 24.07.2006 for making deposit of 50% of the penalty demanded, the Appellant failed to comply with the Stay Order passed on 09.06.2006. As a measure of following of natural justice, on 08.12.2006 again the Appellant was given another chance to comply with the Stay Order passed by 22.12.2006. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 29.10.2007 for hearing. But none appeared except a staff of the Appellant appeared who noted the adjournment. When the matter was called today, none appeared for the appellant. This Tribunal did not feel to deny justice dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, but to decide the same on its own merit even if there was no compliance to the Stay Order.
2. Careful consideration of the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Customs on 01.02.2006 throws light on the nexus of the present Appellant who was CHA in respect of the questionable import made by M/s. Ambica Industries. The live link between the two was established by record showing that the CHA could not plead its ignorance of no involvement in misdeclaration in the Bill of Entry for its defence adducing proper evidence. When the Department could detect breach of law in respect of the above import, both the CHA and the importer tried to plead their ignorance but without clean hands and evidence led. The ld. Commissioner by a speaking and reasoned order, found that Shri Mustafa Seikh an employee of the CHA Appellant by his statement dated 19.08.2003 categorically stated that on the telephone message from Ambica Industries, whole transaction was entered into by both the parties and the CHA could not rule out its role for the breach of law made by the importer. The ld. Commissioner also found that there was uncontrovertable evidence to make the CHA charge free. The misdeclaration being patent and evident it was not practically possible on the part of the ld. Adjudicating Authority to exonerate the CHA from charges. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner came to the conclusion that it was not possible on her part to hold that the CHA was entirely unaware of the misdeclaration and the extent of such declaration.
3. Although the Tribunal provided reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant, the Appellant’s silence has compelled to hold that the present appeal was filed to abuse the process of law. With no vigilant attitude of the litigant or consciousness to pursue remedy, the appeal should not remain pending in the folder of the Tribunal except calling for dismissal with the aforesaid observations and finding.
In the result, appeal is dismissed on merit.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court)