ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. This Reference Application is filed under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 against CEGAT Order No. A/1783-85/96-NB dt. 10.7.96. The brief facts of the case are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence issued show cause notice dt. 5.7.89 to six individuals including the appellants. The basis of the show cause notice was that certain contraband goods were being transported through a courier service from Calcutta to New Delhi on 21.1.89. The said goods were intercepted by the DRI Officers. One box containing the goods were bearing marks as “TAMANIA”. Inside the said box there two card board cartons. Both of them bore markings as “Kingbright Electronic Co. Ltd., PO Box 81-153, Taipei”. Each contained 32 plastic packets containing 1000 Light emitting diodes each. Totally there were 32 plastic packets in one card board box and the other contained 51 packets. The total value of the said light emitting diodes of foreign was estimated at Rs. 1,11,000/-.
Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated and the Addl. Commissioner of Customs ordered for confiscation of 83 pieces of LEDs and gave an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant. The party filed the appeal before CEGAT and the Tribunal vide its abvoe mentioned order, dismissed the appeal of the party upholding the order passed by the Original Authority.
2. The petitioners M/s. Tamania Traders Pvt. Ltd. have framed the following questions of law to be referred to the Hon’ble High Court which are emanating from the a foresaid order of the Tribunal.
(1) Since the Notification Nos. 204/84-Cus & 205/84-Cus do not specify light emitting diodes or Led Lamps categorically by its own name. Whether the presumption that Light Emitting Diode is a notified goods and the order of the appellate authority, based on such presumption, are correct in law?
(2) Without proving first that the two classes of goods are identical or same and that the Led Lamps are notified goods, whether the show cause notice and the adjudication proceedings are valid in Law and within the jurisdiction of the authorities?
(3) When the show cause notice did not raise these queries whether the appellate authority acted within its jurisdiction in drawing such adverse conclusion going beyond the scope of the notice?
(4) Does not `a licence’ of the Import (Control) Order mean `any licence’? Is it not legal to submit any valid licence for clearance at the time of import other than the one mentioned in the high sea sale agreement? Are the customs authority in the port of clearance no competent to accept any valid licence n lieu of the one shown in the high sea sale agreement? Did the appellate authority act in accordance with law by rejecting the import documents because the bill of entry showed another Licence no. other than the one mentioned in the high sea sale agreement?
(5) Whether the appellate authority has acted in accordance with law and Natural justice in condemning the appellants of fraudulent practice and grave offence without taking cognisance of the certificate issued by the Customs Authority at the port of clearance, or verifying with the said authority?
3. I have heard Shri Ashok Haldar, Consultant for the petitioners and Shri A.K. Jain, SDR for the respondents. This Reference Application filed earlier was dismissed for non-appearance and the ROA filed by the party is under consideration today. On hearing the ld. Consultant for the petitioners, I order of the restoration of the petition and take up the Reference Application. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. It is observed form the impugned order of the Tribunal that the appeal of the party has been dismissed upholding the orders passed by the Original Authority simply on the ground that the party was not able to co-relate the seized imported goods with import documents produced by them. None of the issues as stated in the above framed questions by the applicants are even remotely mentioned in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the questions requested to be referred to the Hon’ble High Court do not flow from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The present application therefore, is mis-conceived and the matter is accordingly dismissed.
(Announced and dictated in the Court)