9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Preliminary objection regarding the amount involved in the appeal - Rejection of the appeal by the Asstt. Collector and the Collector (Appeals) based on unsubstantiated shortage claim - Discrepancies regarding the shortage noticed at the time of Customs examination - Compliance with Section 13 requirements and Public Notification No. 276/64 Analysis: 1. The judgment begins with a preliminary objection raised by the Ld. J.D.R., stating that the amount involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 10,000, questioning whether the appeal is fit for being heard on merits as a second appeal. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants argues that the shortage was detected before the out-of-charge order, supported by survey evidence and documentation presented to the original authority, but was rejected as unsubstantiated by the Asstt. Collector. 3. The Counsel further contends that the Collector (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal without considering the crucial fact of shortage detection prior to the out-of-charge order. 4. The appeal is admitted for hearing on merits based on the prima facie case presented by the Counsel, allowing both parties to proceed in the matter. 5. The Ld. Counsel elaborates on the shortage detected during Customs examination, providing details of the bundles and pieces involved, supported by insurance survey and Customs Appraisers' certification, along with relevant documentation. 6. The Ld. Counsel argues that the Collector (Appeals) referenced the absence of packing lists in the decision, emphasizing the established trade practice regarding bundle contents and weight per bundle, which should have been considered in determining the shortage. 7. The Appellants claim to have informed the concerned authorities about the shortage, submitted an undertaking for refund if the shortage was confirmed, and assert that the Asstt. Collector should have examined the case on its merits and allowed their claim. 8. The Ld. J.D.R. raises concerns about discrepancies in the records regarding the timing of shortage detection and the absence of certain essential documents, questioning the completeness of information provided. 9. The J.D.R. highlights the non-submission of a certificate from the Calcutta Port Trust and a claim lodged with the Trust as required by Public Notification No. 276/64, indicating potential non-compliance with Section 13 requirements. 10. The Ld. Counsel reiterates that the shortage was noticed before the Pass-out Order, asserting compliance with legal provisions and challenging the significance of Trade Notices or Public Notices in depriving them of their legitimate dues. 11. The judgment acknowledges the force of the Counsel's arguments, emphasizing the Asstt. Collector's obligation to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, stating that minor procedural infractions should not hinder relief if substantive compliance with the law is demonstrated. 12. Consequently, the order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Asstt. Collector for reconsideration in accordance with the law, directing a thorough review of relevant documents, verification of the shortage timing, and providing the Appellants with an opportunity to be heard before a new decision is made.
|
