2020 (3) TMI 1064 - HC - Customs

Territorial Jurisdiction - transfer of appeal from the South Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Karnataka to the West Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai - HELD THAT - As far as the relief of the petitioner for transfer of the appeal from CESTAT at Bangaluru to Mumbai is concerned, the same cannot be accepted by this Court as this court do not have any jurisdiction to pass such order. At this stage, the learned counsel submits that he would not press this prayer but would make an appropriate application to the Appellate Tribunal purportedly under sub-section 6 of Section 129(C) of the Customs Act, 1962. Directions to not to hear the appeal by the Technical member whose appointment was challenged by the Advocate of the petitioner in the honourable Supreme Court - HELD THAT - Not only the law of equity but the interest of justice would warrant that any litigant would expect the hearing of the matter in the most unbiased and impartial manner. It is a matter of record that touring member (technical member of Bengalure) was the fifth respondent in the writ petition in the Supreme Court which has been now disposed of pending framing of the Rules, the outcome of the rule is not disclosed to this Court. But the fact of the matter is, the apprehension expressed cannot be said to be far-fetched for the reason, the presiding judicial member would not have any objection in case, the quorum for hearing the appeal is offered a different technical member than the one assigned as a touring member, particularly when the counsel representing the customs has expressed no objection. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the appeal of the petitioner pending before the CESTAT at Bangaluru shall be heard by judicial member and a different touring member than the one assigned for the Bangaluru also other than C.I.Mahar, Sanjeev Sreevastava, Sri.P.Venkita Suba Rao respondents in the writ petition before Supreme Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of appeal from South Zonal Bench to West Zonal Bench
2. Challenge to technical member's appointment in Supreme Court
3. Apprehension of prejudice in appeal hearing

Transfer of Appeal from South Zonal Bench to West Zonal Bench:
The petitioner, a 73-year-old resident of Mumbai, sought the transfer of Appeal No.C/20005/2020 from the South Zonal Bench of the Appellate Tribunal at Karnataka to the West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. The petitioner, engaged in import and export business, faced issues with the seizure of goods by Custom Officers in Maharashtra and Cochin. The appeal process involved various orders, penalties, and confiscation of goods. The petitioner's counsel argued for the transfer due to the petitioner's senior citizen status and the lack of a regular bench with two members in Bangalore. The respondent opposed the transfer, citing jurisdictional constraints. Ultimately, the court refrained from ordering the transfer but allowed the petitioner to make an application to the Appellate Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962.

Challenge to Technical Member's Appointment in Supreme Court:
The petitioner's advocate raised concerns regarding the technical member, P. Anjali Kumar, assigned to the Bangalore Bench, whose appointment was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition related to the appointment, allowing the technical members to continue until new appointment rules were framed. The petitioner feared prejudice in the appeal hearing due to this association. The court acknowledged the need for an unbiased hearing and directed that the appeal pending before the CESTAT at Bangalore be heard by a judicial member and a different touring member than the one assigned for Bangalore, specifically excluding certain technical members mentioned in the Supreme Court writ petition.

Apprehension of Prejudice in Appeal Hearing:
The court emphasized the importance of an impartial hearing and recognized the petitioner's concerns about potential bias in the appeal process. Noting the involvement of a technical member who was a respondent in the Supreme Court writ petition, the court directed that a different touring member be assigned for the appeal hearing to ensure fairness and impartiality. This decision aimed to uphold the principles of equity and justice, ensuring that the appeal proceedings are conducted in an unbiased manner, free from any apprehensions of prejudice.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of transfer of appeal, challenge to the technical member's appointment, and apprehension of prejudice in the appeal hearing, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment delivered by the High Court.