9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before he Tribunal. 2. The issue in this appeal is whether the scoured wool exported by the appellants against 10 Shipping Bills between 13.5.1974 and 1.6.1974 was liable to export duty under Item 12 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (referred to for convenience as Export Tariff Schedule ). It appears that these 10 shipments were provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act and were allowed to be exported after taking a deposit of 25% of the amount of duty calculated at 25% ad valorem. Subsequently, after a chemical test had been conducted, the Customs authorities finalised the assessments, holding that the goods covered by the 10 consignments were liable to duty as raw wool, and demanded the dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, in a statutory revision application, was binding on the lower authorities and that the Collector was precluded from taking a decision which was in conflict with the above decision of the revisional authority. 6. Shri Ashok Desai further pointed out that in the adjudication proceedings the Additional Collector had relied on certain opinions said to have been expressed by two persons whom he described as independent experts and unbiased authorities . One of these was stated to be from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, and the other from the Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Jaipur. Shri Ashok Desai filed copies of letter 19.10.1976 addressed by the Additional Collector to Shri P.L. Kanna (the Advocate who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that he had little to add to what was stated in his letter dated 13.11.1976. Thereafter, the Additional Collector, without any further hearing, passed orders in the matter, to the effect indicated in para 2 above. In para 6 of his order, the Additional Collector has referred to the opinions of the two experts enclosed with his letter dated 19.10.1976, and given the substance of the further developments with reference to these opinions which have been set out in preceding paragraphs. In para 23 of his order, which constitutes a part of his findings, the Additional Collector has relied on the two-opinions, which he has reproduced and described as self-explanatory . 8. Shri Ashok Desai argued that the procedure adopted by the Additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion was relied upon. Thus, many text books and reference books were cited in such proceedings. But it was not the practice to call the authors of such publications for cross-examination. Apart from this, Shri Chandramouli also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanungo Co., v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Others, reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1486 (S.C.) for the proposition that principles of natural justice did not require that in every matter, the person who has given opinion should be examined in the presence of the Appellant or allowed to be cross-examined by the person concerned in respect of the statements made before the Customs authorities . 10. We find ourselves unable to accept the arguments of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants that they should be made available. 11. As regards the case of Kanungo Co., relied upon by the learned SDR, we find that the facts in that case were substantially different. Certain watches had been seized by the Customs authorities on the ground that they were smuggled watches. The dealers from whom they were seized sought to establish the legal acquisition/importation of these watches by producing cash memos and vouchers saying that they had been purchased from various other parties. The Customs authorities then made enquiries with these other parties, and found that the explanation given by the dealers was false and fictitious. Before the Supreme Court, the dealers had contended that all the persons from whom enquiries w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld also point out a further difference, namely that in Kanungo Co s case it was the dealer himself who had furnished the names of the various other parties from whom he claimed to have acquired the watches. Therefore, in a sense, they were his own witnesses. He could not legitimately demand to be allowed to cross-examine his own witnesses, if their response to the enquiries of the Customs authorities was not what he wished it to be. 14. In the result, we find that the preliminary objection taken by Shri Ashok Desai on the grounds of a breach of the principles of natural justice is well founded. Shri Ashok Desai has fairly stated that the appellants have no objection to the matter being remanded to the Collector for re-adjudication. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
