TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as about 12,300 bundles and bales and 500 pallets. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in fact there were 24 excess bales discharged and one excess pallet discharged at the Madras Port. However, in the out turn statement dated 3-11-1981, the Madras Port Trust showed that only 783 bales as against 900 bales were delivered to the consignees under Line No. 41 of the Statement. A supplementary out turn statement dated 22-6-1982 was issued by the Port Trust declaring that 117 bales were short landed under Line No. 41 of the statement. The petitioner made efforts to trace the short landed bales and their attempts were in vain. On the basis of the supplementary out turn statement, third respondent issued a show cause notice on 8-3-1983 calling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asked to produce evidence as to how 117 bales could have been cleared otherwise. After the hearing on 26-9-1989, the petitioner herein proceeded to pay the penalty. Again the next hearing was on 10-12-1989 and the petitioner only reiterated the points raised in the grounds of appeal. The petitioner did not choose to produce any documentary evidence for the short landed goods. Consequently, the appellate authority passed an order confirming the order of the original authority. 3. The petitioner again filed a revision petition to the Government of India raising the very same grounds and seeking a personal hearing before the Government of India. The Government of India rejected the request for the personal hearing on the ground that there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 1957 S.C. 648. The following passages is apposite : "It was then stated that the petitioner had not been given personal hearing of the appeal that he preferred to the Central Board of Revenue and the application in revision to the Government. But there is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to a personal hearing." 5. The argument of the petitioner that the supplementary out turn report of Port Trust, which was relied on by all the authorities had been issued on 22-6-1982, whereas the ship had arrived at Madras Port on 10-8-1981, does not appeal to me, because there is no reason why the Madras Port Trust should furnish a false information. Even in the earliest out turn statement dated 3-11-1981, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
