Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Triumph Leather (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 21 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(130)ELT262(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. These four appeals raise same question and relate to certain shipping bills for export of consignments declared to be goods to be exported as finished leather. Samples were drawn and tested by the CLRI, Govt. of India Laboratory and certain deficiencies were pointed out by them and the consignments were held as not conforming to 3/ITC (PN)/92-97 and have thus been considered to be an attempt to export prohibited goods. The Commissioner disregarding the request of the exporters and relying upon the fact that the CLRI was an Institution considered to be an Apex body in so far as the leather technology is concerned, held that the argument that the tests results do not reflect the correct position is not acceptable.
2. Learned Consultant for the appellants has vehemently contested that they have asked time and again for cross-examination of the CLRI officers who have conducted the test but such cross-examinations were not permitted. He drew our attention to the fact that no export could be effected of the said consignments as they were taken back to the town for further reprocessing for eventual export or other use. He prayed for setting aside the order of redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner as the appellants had incurred substantial loss. He relied upon the order of the Single Member bearing Nos. 257-259/2000 dated 28-1-2000.
3. The learned DR relied upon the following words in the opinion of the CLRI authorities.
"It may please be noted that the above opinion is Technical and Academic and not intended for Publicity/Advertisement/Legal purposes. The Institute shall be indemnified against any dispute arising out of this letter"
to submit that the Commissioner has only relied upon the technical opinion given by the CLRI and the legal opinion formed by him is his own and therefore cross examination was not necessary. He supported the orders of the Commissioner.
4. We have considered the submissions and the letter on record and find that lot of documents have been enclosed to the appeals adverting to various processes has to be undergone in transformation of hide from a dead animal to leather commercially understood by persons dealing with it. The question whether a particular stage in the processing of hide into leather has been reached or not can be arrived at by the technological and scientific parameters being met and whether a particular leather is fully finished, semi finished or unfinished would depend upon the stage based on the technological factual test report. If the CLRI authorities have examined the samples and have given an opinion without testing the same, then the opinion could be academic as urged. However, if the reports are based on an after conducting the requisite tests, to ascertain the stage of transformation of hide into leather, then test reports have been correctly relied upon by the Commissioner. Since we find that the author of the said report is required for cross-examination, and should be produced to the defence for cross-examination, an expert's opinion cannot be relied upon without testing the same on anvil on cross examination. The defence's right to seek cross-examination of the experts of leather technology who have conducted the test and given reports is relied upon by the Commissioner. Without offering the cross-examination sought, would render the order bad in law, it is required to be set aside for de novo adjudication. We have carefully perused the order of the Single Member cited by the learned Consultant and we find that the said order is distinguishable on facts on which the Single Member has arrived at his conclusion. Therefore, when we find that the principles of natural justice have been denied, inasmuch as cross-examination which was sought to be granted, has not been granted and it would render the order bad in law, we would set aside the present order and remand the matter back for de novo consideration of the issue. The Commissioner is directed to grant cross-examination of the CLRI authorities who have conducted the test and after the said cross-examination the matter could be decided as per law.
5. In view of our findings, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication in the above terms.