TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (12) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emsp;Shri Ashok Desai strongly urged that this decision of the then revisional authority, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n able to get further instructions from his clients because of some illness in their family and 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Chandramouli submitted that it was not always possible to call for cross-examination every person whose 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 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts" available for cross-examination cannot, therefore, be held to be a satisfactory response to the demand of the 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 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unity undoubtedly amounted to a denial of natural justice. 13. We find force in these arguments of Shri Ashok Desai. We would 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 As....