1999 (9) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Customs (Appeals). The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been passed without hearing the appellants in person. 2. Shri K. Chatterjee, learned Consultant and Shri Ashok Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submit that personal hearing was granted on 26-3-1999 when an adjournment was sought by the Advocate vide his letter dated 24-3-1999 on the ground that the Counsel was suffering from heart trouble with chest pain and submits that he was not in a position to appear before the authority. A prayer was made to refix the case after 10 days. 3. Shri Chatterjee, learned Consultant for the appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellants' prayer for adjournment which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt was not permitted by the original authority. Had it been so, true position would have come out, argues the learned Consultant. It has also been argued vehemently by Shri Chatterjee that it has been the appellants stand right from the beginning that the fabric in question has been purchased locally and as such the fabrics carrying the rubber stamp in ink the name of Bangladesh are freely available everywhere. This factor should have been verified by the Department. It is also the grievances of the appellants that they relied upon documents along with the statements of the other persons particularly the statement of Shri T.K. Biswas were not supplied to them in spite of their having made request to that effect to the adjudicating authority....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e goods were carrying the rubber stamp of the Bangladesh. As regards the violation of the principles of natural justice, Shri Kennedy submits that the Collector (Appeals) was justified in rejecting their adjournment request as it was being sought for second time. 6. In his rejoinder, Shri K. Chatterjee specifically draws my attention to the retraction made before the C.M.M. giving the details of the developments which took place during the period of arrest and the period of the release of the appellants. He submits that such detailed retraction should have considered by the authorities below. He further draws my attention to a letter written on 28-2-1994 by the appellants' Counsel to the Collector, Customs (Preventive) alleging the ....