ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. These stay applications in all the cases and COD application in Appeal Nos. C/592 & 593/2000 are taken up for disposal along with the respective appeals by this common order as the issue involved is in a very narrow compass on the principles of violation of natural justice.
2. The Condonation of delay applications are allowed based on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Coronation Spinning (India) v. CC, Calcutta as reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 376 (S.C.) as this is also a bunch batch matter, involving the same issue. The delays are condoned and the stay applications and appeals are taken up for final hearing by this order.
3. The appellants are exporters of ready-made garments who through Tuticorin Port exported certain consignments where the shipping bills were examined and let-export order were given by the proper officer of the Tuticorin Port on or before 31-12-1998. However, subsequent to the expiry date it was revealed that the subject goods had not reached the Customs House CFS area of Tuticorin Port on or before 31-12-1998 but the goods reached on a date subsequent to this date. Therefore, the Commissioner of Customs held that there was violation of the provisions of Sections 40 and 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 and he ordered confiscation of the goods under Sections 113(d) & 112(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem the same on payment of fine and penalties were also imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, and the draw back claims were rejected.
4. In similar cases, vide Final Order Nos. 1167 & 1168/2000 dated 18-8-2000, this Bench of the Tribunal has held that “there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in denying cross-examination to the appellants of the Customs officer who allowed export of the consignments after due examination of the goods and the Bench further held that this cross-examination is sine qua non to establish the position whether the goods were on the relevant date examined. There is nothing indicated in the impugned order whether the said cross-examination was sought for, yet in the interest of justice and fair play, we find that this cross- examination is a must in the circumstances of the case before a decision could be taken either way to accept or deny the substantial benefit of exports to the appellants. We, therefore, consider that the case needs to be re-adjudicated after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellants to cross-examine the officer who has examined the consignment and relevant shipping bills. In view of our findings, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal as remand with a direction to cross-examination of the officers who conducted the examination of the goods and permitted export of the same and thereafter to take a decision is taken in the matter. The appeals are allowed as remand in the above terms”.
5. Therefore, relying on the final order of this bench noted above and other orders of similar nature, after granting waiver of pre-deposit, these appeals are allowed after setting aside the order by remand for de novo adjudication on the same grounds as in the earlier orders. The stay applications and condonation of delay applications and the appeals are disposed of in above terms.