ORDER
S. Kalyanam, Member (J)
1. Since a common question of law arises for consideration in all the above three appeals, they are consolidated together and disposed of by a single order. The short question of law that arises for consideration in the above appeals is whether the respective impugned orders are legally tenable and within the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam. The appellants imported ‘Foley Ballon Catheter’ and sought clearance of the same under Open General Licence which was allowed by the Customs authorities in terms of Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act for short). Later on, the authorities found that the goods imported are different from ‘suction catheter’ and are not permissible for clearance under O.G.L. and in this view of the matter a show cause notice was issued to the appellants resulting in the impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector of Customs. The appellants are absent and have addressed a communication that the appeals could be disposed of on the basis of the material available on record and in the light of the earlier ruling of the Tribunal in Order No. …
2. Shri C.V. Krishnan, the learned D,R, fairly concedes that in the two orders of the Tribunal referred to supra a view has been taken following the ratio of the Division Bench ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Dain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.’ -1982 ELT 43 (Del.) – as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. and Anr.’ v. Union of India and Ors. 1984 (18) ELT 694, that once a statutory authority in exercise of a quasi-judicial power passes on order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption in terms of Section 47 of the Act, the same can only be called in question by way of appeal in terms of Section 129D, clause (2) of the Act.
3. In the present case I find that the Additional Collector of Customs has passed an order of adjudication once over in a matter that has already been adjudicated upon by the proper officer in terms of Section 47 of the Act in respect of the goods in question. Therefore, following the ratio of the Division Bench Rulings of the Delhi and Punjab and Haryana High Courts and which have been followed in the earlier rulings of the Tribunal referred to supra, I hold that the impugned orders appealed against are without jurisdiction and in this view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.