2016 (1) TMI 835

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata. 2. Sh. Shyamal Sarkar (Sr Advocate), Sh. A.D. Roy (Advocate) and Sh. Rajesh Gupta (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellants. Learned senior Advocate argued that the present appeals have been filed by the appellants as a result of order dt 26/11/2014 passed by Calcutta High Court in WP No. 1059 of 2014. It was his case that Adjudicating authority has passed this order without providing the appellants sufficient opportunity of personal hearing. That last personal hearing was fixed by the adjudicating authority on 24/6/14 and on that day Bar Council of West Bengal observed protest & abstain from work regarding brutal attack on Sh. Rabindranath Bhattacharjee, a Bar Council Member. He furnished a copy of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....about the modus operandi for procuring Muriate of Potash illegally to export the same in the guise of Potassium Feldspar. That E-mail correspondence between M/s Saraf Impex Pvt Ltd (SIPL) & foreign customers, alongwith Bank documents, Test reports etc, clearly indicate the export goods were MOP and not Potassium Feldspar. That entire chain has been established by the Revenue. 4. Heard both sides & perused the case records. These appeals have been filed by the appellants as a result of order 26/11/2014 passed by Honable Calcutta High Court in WP No. 1059 of 2014 filed by the appellants. Miscellaneous applications have been filed by the appellants for additional grounds on merits as they did not file any reply to the show cause notice for n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ramed the following question:- "2. The substantial questions of law, arising in the present appeal (added by way of amendment under our order passed today) are : "Whether the tribunal has committed an error of law in rejecting the adjournment application filed by the counsel for the Appellant on the ground that matter has been adjourned earlier also from time to time without applying its mind to the averments made in the adjournment application filed on the date fixed ? and again whether the tribunal ought to have adjourned the matter as the counsel for the appellant was unwell and had moved an application for the same more so when the said application was not opposed by the opposite party?" 3. We reframe the substantial question o....