1984 (7) TMI 372 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the import license compliance.
2. Quality and thickness of imported goods.
3. Denial of natural justice due to lack of cross-examination.
4. Procedural adherence and expert opinion reliance.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Import License Compliance:
The appellant imported 404 pieces of M.S. plates from Bulgaria under Import Licence No. P/D/8541999/T/OR/47/D/31:32, dated December 23, 1970, for Prime M.S. plates of tested killed quality with thicknesses of 5 mm and 6 mm. The Customs Authorities observed that the imported goods did not conform to the import license due to lower silicon content, categorizing them as semi-killed rather than killed quality. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued under Section 112 and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaration.

2. Quality and Thickness of Imported Goods:
Upon testing by the Director General, Supplies & Disposals, Jamshedpur, Sample No. 1 was found to be semi-killed with a thickness of 5.05 mm, and Sample No. 2 was killed quality but with a thickness of 7.90 mm. The appellant argued that the criterion of 0.10% silicon content applied to ladle analysis, not the final product, and requested a cross-examination of the testing officer. The Customs Authorities, however, relied on the test report and imposed a penalty of Rs. 41,500.00 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Denial of Natural Justice Due to Lack of Cross-Examination:
The appellant contended that the refusal to summon the testing officer for cross-examination constituted a denial of natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument, emphasizing the necessity of following principles under the Evidence Act, which mandates the opportunity for cross-examination of expert witnesses. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court judgment in Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhoormull, which underscores the importance of adhering to basic canons of criminal jurisprudence and natural justice in customs proceedings.

4. Procedural Adherence and Expert Opinion Reliance:
The Tribunal noted procedural infirmities, referencing the Supreme Court's stance in M/s. Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, which highlighted the need for proper investigation and procedural compliance. The Tribunal also referenced Sections 45 and 46 of the Evidence Act, which relate to the relevance and admissibility of expert opinions. The Tribunal found that the Customs Authorities had not provided the appellant with the opportunity to cross-examine the testing officer, thus violating principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the case to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, directing that the appellant be given the opportunity to cross-examine the testing officer and that the case be decided in accordance with the law within six months. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural fairness and natural justice in customs adjudications.