COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) Vs. M D SADRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) The appellants had framed questions of law which arise in this appeal in Para 1 of the Appeal Memo. To consider the controversy, it may be necessary to set out some facts. The Petitioners are the holders of CHA licence. The proceedings were initiated for revocation of the licence on the ground that the respondents herein had permitted the licence to be used contrary to the terms of the licence. The appropriate authority on considering the various contentions by order dated 12-9-2006 held that the charges against the Petitioners were proved and consequently ordered revocation of the licence.

(3.) The respondents, aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. In the meantime, the proceedings had been initiated by the Customs Collectorate at Tuticorin. By order of 14-9-2006 the importer therein was found guilty of the charges under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act. In so far as respondents herein was concerned, a finding was recorded that respondents were not liable for forgery or producing fraudulent documents. When appeal came up for hearing before: the tribunal, the tribunal found that, the order dated 14-9-2006 will have to be considered and in the light of that set aside the order dated 12-9-2006 and remanded the matter back for a fresh adjudication by the impugned order dated 5-12-2006. That order is the subject matter of the present appeal.