1994 (7) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther the Tribunal was correct in law inasmuch as it refused to admit the letter of D.G.F.T. clarifying that Bezels fitted with glass required a specific licence even by actual users since the empty watch case is specifically mentioned in the restricted list of the Import Policy. 2. Whether after having refused to admit the additional evidence, if the clarificatory letter can be so regarded, the Tribunal could have sat on judgment and interpreted the Exim Policy. 2. Making his submissions on behalf of the Department, Shri M.M. Mathur, Jt. CDR stated that the question to be decided was whether Bezel fitted with glass could be deemed as "watch case" which was covered under Item 3A of the Negative List of the Import & Export Pol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us Application No. C/Misc. Application 1067/93-NRB wherein request had been made for taking on record the letter F. No. 48(428)/92-97/IPC dated September, 1993 of the D.G.F.T. and for being permitted to urge additional ground. He pleaded that the Ministry of Commerce being the final authority regarding Import Policy, their opinion is binding on the Customs in regard to the implementation of the provisions of the Policy. He stated that under these circumstances the letter from the D.G.F.T. should have been admitted as additional evidence by the Tribunal. He contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jeeta Mal Ji Porwal Ji v. State of Gujarat - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 483 (SC) = AIR 1987 SC 1321, the Tribunal should h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Department to contend that the Bench had not taken into account the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Department. He submitted that in any case the Misc. Application No. 1067/93-NRB filed by the Department was for urging additional grounds and not for being permitted to file additional evidence as made out by the Learned Jt. CDR. He stated that the order passed by the Tribunal being reasoned and deals with all the points raised by the appellants therefore no question of law arises therefrom. He therefore pleaded for rejection of the applications for reference to the High Court. 4. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. On a perusal of the record of the case, I find that there is nothing to indic....