1999 (3) TMI 196 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of notification benefit and penalty for non-compliance with export requirements.
- Allegations of imported goods being sold in the market.
- Cross-examination of witnesses and submission of evidence.
- Commissioner's order confined to one license only.
- Lack of opportunity for importer to make submissions post cross-examination.
- Import made under three licenses but order passed only for one.
- Clubbing of three licenses by licensing authority.

Analysis:

The case involved the appellant importing goods under three advance licenses, specifically polypropylene granules, for manufacturing fishing nets, crates, and tubs with the export product being fish. The appellant extended the benefit of Notification 204/92 for clearance. Subsequently, the importer faced allegations of not complying with export requirements and selling the imported goods in the market. The Commissioner's order, dated 7th September, 1998, focused on one license (No. 347/137) only, leaving the other two licenses unaddressed. The appellant requested a fresh hearing post cross-examination of witnesses to present evidence and submissions, which the Commissioner failed to provide initially.

The Commissioner's failure to grant a hearing after cross-examination was deemed crucial as it deprived the importer of the opportunity to present evidence in defense. The importance of a post-cross-examination hearing was highlighted to allow for a comprehensive presentation of the case. The case involved imports under three licenses, with the Commissioner's order limited to one license, necessitating a consolidated decision for all licenses. The clubbing of licenses by the licensing authority further emphasized the need for a unified decision on all imports.

In light of the above, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside. The directive was given for the Commissioner to address all three notices related to imports under the three licenses collectively and in compliance with the law. This decision aimed to ensure a fair and comprehensive evaluation of all imports under the licenses, addressing the allegations and compliance issues effectively.