9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ping bill No. 013834, dated 16-7-1983 for 328 bales of Acrylic yarn. He submits that the weight of these 328 bales of Acrylic Yarn was declared 30 MT in the shipping bill. He submits that since the goods were not ready in full, the appellants submitted another shipping bill No. 020794, dated 23-7-1983 for 328 bales of Acrylic Yarn weighing 11,070 Kgs. He submits that on 25-7-1983, 4 samples were drawn by the Customs Authorities from the consignment with reference to shipping bill No. 013834; that two samples were sent to the Textile Committee and two were sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist; that as the export was to be done in accordance with terms of the letter of credit, the appellants filed a writ petition with Hon ble Bombay High Court ; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Committee Officers were cross examined and one of the Officers intimated to the adjudicating authority that the appellants had tried to influence him. The learned Counsel submits that the appellants were not given a copy of this letter and that the adjudicating authority while deciding the case dismissed all the test reports and affidavit holding that Dr. Manjunathan was being influenced by the appellants and that I am unable to give credibility to those evidence produced by them, as it is evident from Dr. Manjunathan letter dated 8-4-1986 that he (appellant) would not hesitate to come to any extent to prove his point of view. He submits that instead of discussing the evidence produced by the appellants, the adjudicating authority just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions of both sides. Before going into the merits of the case, let us first examine the contention of the appellants that there has been failure of the principles of natural justice in as much as the letter of Dr. Manjunathan was not disclosed to them and that the entire evidence furnished by them in the form of test reports and the affidavit was brushed aside on the ground that the appellants were capable of exercising influence on the witnesses. We find that this action of the adjudicating authority without discussing the test reports and the affidavit and without discussing the contents of the Dr. Manjunathan is depriving them of the opportunity rebutting the findings and producing evidence to support their case. In view of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
