By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, SEPT 09, 2017: THIS is an appeal filed by the importer against an o-in-a dated November 2016.

The matter was heard recently.

The Member (Judicial) began the order with the following acerbic comments –

"This is one of the cases of highhandedness of the officers who acted whimsically to deny the second test of the goods when the first test result revealed the water content of the imported goods was 4.9% as against permissible limit of 4% and the appellant prayed for a second test in accordance with law."

The AR submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced redemption fine and penalty.

The Bench further observed -

"3. It is well settled principles of law that there should be a fair trial to discover truth since trial is the voyage to discover truth and render justice. But grievance of appellant was not redressed conducting second test. Arbitrary decision has been taken by learned adjudicating authority. When the appellant was dealt fairly but dealt to the detriment of justice, this is not the case of even to confirm the appellate order even though there was reduction of redemption fine and penalty as has been averred by Revenue. In such circumstance where even appellate authority paid a deaf ear to the grievance of the appellant, impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly."

Nonetheless, the Member (Judicial) opined that the matter ought to reach to the notice of Chief Commissioner of Customs for appropriate guidance to the field to protect interest of justice.

And further quipped - Public authorities shall gain public confidence when they act fairly and discharge their duty in the manner required by law.

In the result, appeal was allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-3275-CESTAT-MUM)