ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This is a miscellaneous application for early hearing of the case.
2. Arguing in support of the miscellaneous application the Ld. Advocate submits that the impugned goods, viz., magic eye, to be fitted in a battery as a measuring instrument and the impugned goods all long were being classified under CTH 9031.80. He draws our attention to the particulars of Bill of Entries indicated at Page 5 of the Appeal. He submits while, at this stage, he is not asking for decision on merits but is only praying for early hearing because a wrong classification under CTH 8507.90 resorted to by the Department after altering an established practice has seriously affected not only their domestic market but also export market. He has also filed an affidavit in support of his contention. Drawing our attention to page 2 annexed to the affidavit, he submits that during 1994-95,11,000 batteries with magic eye and during 1995-96,12,000 batteries were exported. During 1996-97, however, they failed to export even a single battery because of the price differential created by a wrong assessment in case of impugned goods. In terms of value whereas during 1994-95 batteries worth Rs. 62.38 Lakhs and during 1995-96 batteries worth Rs. 61 Lakhs were exported, during 1996-97 they could not export any batteries. He submits that this is a recurring matter and has badly affected not merely their domesic trade but more importantly the export of goods resulting in serious loss of foreign exchange. In international markets even a small price difference affects the market and they would be seriously affected if this recurring phenomenon is allowed to persist for a long period without a final decision.
3. Ld. DR submits that merely because exports are being affected is no reason for early hearing. As to change in practice of assessment, resorted to by the Deptt, he submits that this matter can be gone into at the time of regular
4. We have heard both sides. Considering the pleas made before us and the foreign export market, as also the established practice which has been changed, we are of the view that interest of justice demand the matter to be settled at an early date so that a final view in the matter can be taken.
5. At this stage, the Ld. DR submits that he would have to collect the details about the past practice of assessment and also obtain necessary documents, and therefore, even while early hearing is allowed, he may be given sufficient time to enable him to defend his case.
6. Considered. The matter be fixed for regular hearing on 4th July, 1997.