Tribunal denies early hearing, grants stay against Order-in-Appeal, finding it unsustainable based on facts

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Misc. Application for early hearing due to pending older appeals. However, the Tribunal granted a stay against the Order-in-Appeal, as it found the Order-in-Appeal not sustainable based on the facts presented, including certification by CLRI. The case involved attempted export of goods in violation of export restrictions, as confirmed by CLRI's report, leading to the impugned goods being liable for confiscation.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Early hearing application
- Stay application against Order-in-Appeal
- Export of goods in violation of export restriction

Early hearing application:
The Revenue filed a Misc. Application for early hearing of the appeal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal cited the reason that due to several older appeals pending, they were not inclined to accede to the Revenue's request for early hearing.

Stay application against Order-in-Appeal:
The Revenue also filed a stay application along with the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 17.6.2015. The grounds for the stay application were that the redemption fine and penalty imposed in the Order-in-Original dated 5.2.2015 were set aside in the impugned order. The Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case, including the certification by the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), granted the stay against the impugned order, as it was prima facie of the view that the Order-in-Appeal was not sustainable.

Export of goods in violation of export restriction:
The case revolved around the attempted export of 'Leather of beige colour' along with a certificate from CLRI. The Customs drew a sample of the goods, which was tested by CLRI. The certification revealed that the sample did not meet the required norms and conditions for export. CLRI clarified that the earlier sample tested was not the same as the one sent by Customs, indicating a violation of export restrictions. Based on CLRI's report and clarification, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned goods were attempted to be exported in violation of export restrictions, rendering them liable to confiscation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's stay petition and granted a stay against the impugned order.

---