2001 (8) TMI 601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tronics, Appellants Nos. 1 and 2, had imported goods through Internal Container Depot, Jaipur in 1992; that the inspection of the goods revealed that these were complete quartz clock movements in CKD conditions whereas these were declared as parts of Stepper Motor/Components of clock movements and that the goods were under-valued; that the then Collector II adjudicated the matter under Order No. 10/93-Cus., dated 31-5-1993 ordering confiscation of goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine, enhancement of assessable value and imposition of penalty; that appeals were filed before the Appellate Tribunal by the Respondent herein; that in the course of proceedings, on an application filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein it was observed that a subordinate court is bound by the direction of the High Court and contended that accordingly the Commissioner was duty bound to consider the said documents. He also mentioned that it has been observed by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned Order that "DRI, Jaipur or Delhi neither sent any representative nor any document additionally in support of their charges, although they were informed to be present during hearing and to submit original documents of Customs Department of Hong Kong Government; as directed by the Hon'ble Member (Technical)"; that no notice of hearing was sent to DRI which is evident from DRI, New Delhi's letter dated 13-7-2001; that Original file also d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal found little use for these reports in the proceedings; that the Civil Appeal Nos. 5136-40 of 1997 filed by the Revenue have been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide Order dated 2-12-1999. He also mentioned that it appears that the Revenue did not challenge the evidentiary value of these documents before the Apex Court. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that the learned Vice-President in the earlier Order Nos. 516-518/98-B2 expressed his opinion that the said documents were of evidentiary value which could be and were required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudging the case. The learned Vice-President then in accordance with the principles of natural justice, directed the cas....