2001 (6) TMI 833

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 letter addressed to the Registrar of this Tribunal by Shri G.C. Mishra, ALA of Chennai Zone of the Respondent with which a copy of Mahazer dated 1-6-2001 showing the service of notices of hearing as aforesaid, has been annexed. No communication has been received from Appellants nor anyone has appeared on their behalf. In these circumstances, Dr. Shamsuddin requested that the appeal and dispensation application can be taken up for consideration ex parte. 3. I find force in what Dr. Shamsuddin submitted as above. The law requires notice of hearing to be given to the parties before their appeals are taken up for consideration. If the parties having been duly served upon with notice of hearing, are neither present nor sought adjournment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in the said petition are that the senior partner of the firm Mr. Nazeer Ahmad was out of India to participate in the Indian Delegation for Leather Buyers and Seller Meet at France, Denmark and Holland till 23-4-1986 and on his arrival his daughter had undergone a major operation; the petitioner's wife had also undergone an uterus operation and the Petitioner had to attend his ailing wife and for some time he himself was ill and, therefore, the partners were not able to attend their business during such time. Consequently, there is a delay of 66 days in filing the memorandum of appeal. The petition is not accompanied by any supporting documents. Such bald statements are not sufficient to warrant condonation. Dr. Shamsuddin further submitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts have been charged with. Dr. Shamsuddin, thus, submitted that both on legal technicalities as well as merits, the appeal ought to be dismissed. 7. It is seen that the appellants were proceeded against for contravention of section 18(2) read with Central Government Notification No. F. 1/67/EC/733 dated 1-1-1974 by not realising the outstanding proceeds made during 1981 under the following four GRI forms namely, (1) MaE 254247/5-10-1981 Rs. 13,148.08; (2) MaE 254253/31-10-1981 US $ 8,063.75; (3) MaE 24527/18-4-1981 DM. 16,924 and (4) MaE 254260/28-11-1981 Rs. 25,258.78. 8. The Appellants gave reasons for non-realisation of export proceeds in terms of section 18 of the Act as follows : In the first GRI, the leather garments were exported t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o arrange for the settlement of the bill. As regards the fourth GRI, the appellants have not given any explanation as to why the export proceeds thereof has not been realised. It is seen in this regard that exported goods value US $ 5,052 to Siro Imports, Holland and the buyer made a part payment and further part payment was received from Mehta Froster GMBH, West Germany as a portion of the goods was transferred to them by M/s. Siro Imports. In these circumstances, show-cause notice was issued to the firm and its two partners whereupon, adjudication proceedings were held and the Adjudicating Officer finally found the appellants guilty of contravening the provisions of section 18(2) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the partnership firm....