TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (12) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment is one of the parties and the dealer is another party. 2. The facts of the case are summarily as follows: The appellant is a dealer in goat hair. He has obtained necessary permission from the official authorities to send various consignments of that commodity to several places in the East European countries, namely Czechoslovakia and Hungary. This happened in the year 1969. 3. On November 5, 1970, the business premises of the appellant were searched and certain incriminating documents were found and seized. These documents disclosed that goat hair purported to be sent ostensibly to soft currency areas were actually unloaded in and meant for West European countries and hard currency areas. It was also found that in every case the appellant received export proceeds in rupees. Originally, a show cause notice under section 12(1) was issued to the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking to quash the show cause notice which related to contravention of the provision of the Sea Customs Act also. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court and the order therein was confirmed on appeal. Thereafter, the Department i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on proceedings took place on November 9, 1979, that is to say, 6 years after his explanation. He also contended that the adjudicating authority as well as the Appellate Board have based their decision no assumptions and that there was no sufficient material to come to the conclusion that he has contravened both the provisions of the Act indicated in the show cause notices, namely sections 10(1)(b) and 12(2)(b). 6. As far as failure of justice is concerned, we find in the order of the adjudicating authority that the dealer/appellant inspected all the documents. No doubt, the documents were not returned to him as applied for, since it was not possible for the Department to part with the documents and no application appears to have been made for copies of the documents. Again in the order of the Appellate Board, we find that the appellant has been given sufficient opportunity to peruse the document before the adjudicating authority had that even during appeal proceedings such an opportunity has been afforded to him. As far as the delay in the proceedings is concerned, no explanation was given by learned counsel for the respondent for the period of six years between the receipt of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....runs as follows: "12. Payment for exported goods:- (2) Where any export of goods has been made to which a notification under sub-section (1) applies, no person entitled to sell, or procure the sale, of, the said goods shall, except with the permission of the Reserve Bank, do or refrain from doing anything or take or refrain from taking any action which has the effect of securing that- (b) payment for the goods is made otherwise than in the prescribed manner or does not represent the full amount payable by the foreign buyer in respect of the goods, subject to such deductions, if any, as may be allowed by the Reserve Bank, or is delayed to such extent as aforesaid: Provided that no proceedings in respect of any contravention of this sub- section shall be instituted unless the prescribed period has expired and payment for the goods representing the full amount as aforesaid has been made in the prescribed manner." 9. This section regulates payment for exported goods. It is meant to deal with a specific set of circumstances, in contrast to s. 10 which deals broadly with the duty of persons entitled to receive foreign exchange. For a contravention u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remely difficult to uphold the order of the Appellate Board where there is not even a single line showing how the contravention under section 12(2)(b) has occurred. If we see the order of the adjudicating authority, we do not find anything except a cursory sentence which we have already referred to above. In the absence of materials to show that a contravention under section 12(2)(b) actually happened, we are necessarily led to the conclusion of setting aside the order of the Appellate Board as far as the penalty for contravention under section 12(2)(b) is concerned. 12. Before parting with this case, we want to observe that the order of the adjudicating authority does not contain the list of documents relied on by the authority. Since the order is subject to appeal before the Appellate Board and a further appeal before this court, it will be necessary for a proper scrutiny of the order passed that all the documents perused and relied upon by the authority are listed with adequate description and referred to as far as possible in the order itself with indication of their serial number. We do hope that in future this requirement will be kept in mind by the concerned officers. ....