ACMI INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE difference of opinion said to have arisen in this matter has been referred to me by Honble President. The points raised by Member (Judicial) for consideration by Third Member and the Member (Technical)s reluctance to agree to the questions raised and his categorical suggestion that Member (Judicial) has not properly considered the matter and the real difference of view expressed in the orders recorded by them has not been brought out in the note prepared by Member (Judicial) has been stated by Member (Technical). He has ultimately suggested that the matter has to be re -heard. The note prepared by Member (Judicial) in the form of questions and the Member (Technical)s disagreement of these questions raised is extracted herein below : -

(2.) I have heard ld. JCDR and ld. Counsel in the matter. Both sides have filed written submissions.

(3.) IT is the submission of ld. JCDR that Member (Judicial)s order is not in terms of law and the citations referred to. She supports the opinion expressed by Member (Technical) while disagreeing with the questions raised by Member (Judicial) and submits that Member (Judicial) ought to have addressed himself to the questions arising in the appeal and should have properly answered the same. She also submits that the question of mis -declaration leading to confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty was not considered by Member (Judicial) and therefore the suggestion of Member (Technical) for being re -heard is the right course of action in this matter.