1986 (9) TMI 315 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal due to default dismissal.
2. Disputed duty recovery on exported animal food based on protein content.
3. Lack of hearing and show cause notice before Assistant Collector's orders.
4. Discrepancy in test reports and contention on chemical changes in samples.
5. Legal arguments based on previous court decisions regarding chemical changes.
6. Effect of time lapse and exposure on protein content in stored samples.
7. Prejudice caused by undisclosed information and need for de novo consideration.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was initially dismissed for default due to the appellants' failure to attend a hearing, which they sought to restore citing a missed adjournment request. The Department did not oppose, leading to the restoration of the appeal.

2. The core issue revolved around the duty recovery on animal food exports, where the Assistant Collector claimed the exported food exceeded the permitted protein content. The appellants challenged the test results and the lack of a show cause notice, leading to the present appeal.

3. The appellants argued that they were not granted a hearing or issued a show cause notice before the Assistant Collector's orders, challenging the validity of the assessments under Section 28 of the Customs Act.

4. Discrepancies in test reports and the time lapse between sample collection and testing were raised. The appellants contended that chemical changes over time could have affected the protein content, supported by expert testimony and previous orders.

5. Legal arguments were made based on court decisions highlighting the impact of time lapse on chemical composition, drawing parallels to cases involving food adulteration laws.

6. The debate focused on whether the increase in protein content was due to the time lapse and exposure of samples to air and humidity, with conflicting arguments regarding the impact of storage conditions on the samples.

7. The undisclosed information regarding sample storage conditions led to prejudice against the appellants, prompting the need for a fresh consideration by the Collector to allow the appellants to contest the information and ensure a fair decision-making process.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order and remanding the matter for a fresh adjudication by the Collector to address the issues raised, provide relevant information to the appellants, and ensure a fair and transparent decision-making process in accordance with the law.