9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S-80 specification and Rejected Waste Mechanical Paper P.S. Specification in reels/sheets . The other appellant Shri M.M. Rajgarhia is a Director of the firm. Under the impugned order dated 8-6-1984 the Collector of Customs, Calcutta held that the two consignments were not of Waste Paper, as claimed by the appellants, and hence were not duty free under exemption Notification No. 234/79, as claimed by the appellants. He held that they were assessable as board and newsprint under Tariff headings 48.01/21(1) and (2) respectively and additional duty of Customs was payable under Item 17(1) CET. He further held that so far as newsprint is concerned the same is canalised for import vide Appendix-8 of AM 1984 Policy and could have been imported b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue whether the imported goods were entitled to benefit under Notification No. 234/79 and that the hearing was to take place on 5-6-1984 and orders should be passed latest by 11-6-1984. It is in pursuance of these direction the adjudication order had been passed on 8-6-1984 and despatched on 11-6-1984. From the order of the Collector it appears that none turned up for the appellants on 5-6-1984, but a request was made for hearing on the next date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 6-6-1984 at which time Shri Rajgarhia appeared and made submissions and that the hearing was continued at the request of Shri Rajgarhia on 7-6-1984. Shri Chakravarthy for the Department submits that the hearing appears to have been continued on 8-6-1984 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity and not waste paper). 7. As earlier mentioned, the adjudication had commenced on the 6th and continued on the 7th and probably on the 8th. It is seen from the copy of the test memo in respect of samples drawn from both consignments that samples have been drawn on 7-6-1984 and test memo sent to the analyst on 8-6-1984. The analyst has furnished his report on 8-6-1984. That would mean that these test reports were not even available on the 6th and 7th when the adjudication went on. As earlier mentioned, it is only a matter of inference that adjudication went on for the third day on the 8th also. It may be further noted that the order itself is dated 8-6-1984. Shri Lakshmikumaran further submits that the samples had also not been drawn in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies as to the actual condition of the imports under those invoices or bills of entry. 11. It is, therefore, clear that in the proceedings held by the Collector the appellants were denied a proper opportunity to make their representations or produce their defence or even seek for cross-examination of the persons whose opinions were sought to be relied upon in passing the order. It may be true that the Collector had to hold his adjudication within the time schedule Fixed by the High Court. But that would not mean he need not observe normal principles of natural justice in conducting the adjudication proceedings, such as disclosing to the appellants, before the commencement of the adjudication, the evidence sought to be relied upon in establ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
