2016 (6) TMI 909 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake in the order - request for release of the goods - It is noticed that this Bench has not passed the order in the appellate side. Learned counsel explains that the Technical Member who was the author of the order has retired in the meantime. However, the Judicial Member is continuing in this Bench. Therefore, he prays that as expeditiously as possible, MA(ROM) may be listed for hearing without causing any detriment to the interest of justice since goods are lying in the custody of the customs for five years. Held that - To the aforesaid propositions, Revenue s objection is that the application for rectification of mistake prays for restoration of the appeal for re-hearing which is not permitted by law for which Revenue shall file reply if one month time is allowed. - We make it clear that we do not propose to deprive Revenue from filing its reply. But in all fairness, Revenue should come up within two weeks to file its reply so that the Tribunal may make alternative arrangement for hearing the MA (ROM) as expeditiously as possible when the live consignment is in the custody of customs.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in disposal of miscellaneous application by the Tribunal.
2. Alleged miscarriage of justice in the original appeal order.
3. Legal infirmities in the Tribunal's order.
4. Request for expeditious listing of the miscellaneous application.
5. Objection by Revenue regarding restoration of the appeal for re-hearing.
6. Directions for filing reply by Revenue and alternative hearing arrangements.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in disposal of miscellaneous application
The appellant's counsel highlighted the delay in listing the miscellaneous application, emphasizing the urgency due to the goods being held by customs for five years. The Tribunal acknowledged the concern and assured a prompt hearing without compromising justice.

Issue 2: Alleged miscarriage of justice in the original appeal order
The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order failed to consider crucial arguments and evidence presented, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Specific references were made to the adjudication order and the lack of attention to key submissions by the appellant's counsel.

Issue 3: Legal infirmities in the Tribunal's order
The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order contained legal infirmities, including overlooking cited judgments, delayed pronouncement, and failure to address critical aspects affecting natural justice. These issues were deemed essential for rectification to ensure fairness to the appellant.

Issue 4: Request for expeditious listing of the miscellaneous application
Considering the retirement of the Technical Member responsible for the pending order, the appellant sought an expedited hearing of the miscellaneous application to address the prolonged custody of goods by customs. The Tribunal assured timely action to prevent any injustice to the appellant.

Issue 5: Objection by Revenue regarding restoration of the appeal for re-hearing
The Revenue objected to the request for re-hearing, citing legal restrictions on such restoration. A reply period was granted for the Revenue to present its stance, ensuring a balanced opportunity for both parties to address the matter effectively.

Issue 6: Directions for filing reply by Revenue and alternative hearing arrangements
The Tribunal directed the Revenue to file a reply promptly to facilitate the scheduling of the miscellaneous application's hearing. Additionally, arrangements were instructed to ensure justice in the absence of the regular Bench, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution while maintaining procedural fairness.

In conclusion, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's grievances and the need for a swift resolution while upholding legal standards and procedural requirements. The directive for timely actions by both parties and the Tribunal aimed to address the issues raised comprehensively and ensure a just outcome in the pending matter.

← Previous Next →