9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudication order was passed i.e., 8.6.2012 which was rejected on 5.7.2012. Thereafter the appellate order under RTI Act was passed on 17.8.2012. However, when the adjudicating authority in the second round of litigation took up the matter, the fact that such applications were made and an appellate order had already been passed under RTI Act was not brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority at all, when the personal hearing took place - In fact nothing could have prevented or should have prevented the appellants from seeking the cross-examination of the First Secretary (Commerce) if they intended to do so in the first round of litigation itself, since appellants knew that there was a report and that had been mentioned in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d during the period March to June, 2008 and the declared value was USD 250 per MT in respect of bills of entry and the total quantity involved was 180.08 MTs. Investigation was commenced on the ground that the declared value was low and after initiation of proceedings and adjudication process, an order was passed enhancing the value to 1100 USD per MT which was challenged by the appellants before this Tribunal in the first round of litigation. One of the grounds taken in the appeal while challenging the order-in-original was that the conclusion to enhance the value was arrived at on the basis of the report from the First Secretary (Commerce), Singapore High Commission. Appellants submission was that the report could not have been relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elying upon his report. The appellants are seeking stay of this order. 3. After hearing both sides for some time, we have reached the conclusion that instead of granting stay at this stage, it would be more appropriate to dispose of the appeal itself since the only issue involved is whether the adjudicating authority is competent to adjudicate the matter or not. Accordingly, we take up the appeal itself for final decision with the consent of both sides. 4. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellants submitted that they had filed an application under RTI Act to the Singapore High Commission seeking a copy of the letter of the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin addressed to the High Commissioner; copy of the documents based on which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report as per information received under RTI Act was not based on any document or basis and at this stage the only person who could clarify this is the person who had sent the report. It would be appropriate if the person as adjudicating authority is directed not to adjudicate the matter so long as he occupies the post of adjudicating authority in this case. He also reiterates his submission that the First Secretary s report should not have been relied upon at all since no basis or details were given. He also submits that appellants are making a specific prayer and a direction by the Tribunal to the CBEC to make alternative arrangement for adjudication of the matter by a different person who had not sent the report in the first place. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority in the second round of litigation took up the matter, the fact that such applications were made and an appellate order had already been passed under RTI Act was not brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority at all, when the personal hearing took place. It is relevant to note that personal hearing was granted on 8.8.2012 when the appeal filed by the appellants under RTI Act was pending. Thereafter we are not able to make out on what date the appellate order was received. However, as per the facts on record, it was on 7.9.2012 that the appellants for the first time made a request for cross-examination of the adjudicating authority who was the First Secretary (Commerce). This request was not made at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his capacity as First Secretary (Commerce) was not part of the investigation and cannot be considered to be an investigating officer is correct. He had only responded to the query from India about the prices of betel nuts and had sent a report. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was part of the investigation. Therefore, this ground also we are unable to accept. Therefore, we have to reject the appeals filed by the appellants challenging the impugned orders wherein the Commissioner has refused to recuse himself as required by the appellants to participate in the adjudication. 8. Having come to the conclusion, which is mainly based on law as we have understood, we still leave it to the judgment of the present Commissioner whether he shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
