2005 (10) TMI 162 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal based on Supreme Court order for deposit amount.
2. Misrepresentation of facts regarding Supreme Court appeal.

Issue 1: Restoration of appeal based on Supreme Court order for deposit amount
The applicant filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal, citing a Supreme Court order directing them to deposit a specific amount in compliance with the Tribunal's order. The applicant claimed to have deposited the entire demanded customs duty amount as per the Supreme Court's directive. However, it was revealed during the proceedings that the applicant had not actually filed any appeal before the Supreme Court, contrary to their assertions. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had made false averments regarding the Supreme Court's order, leading to the dismissal of the application for restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims of Supreme Court intervention were baseless and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the partner of the appellant company for filing the application with false averments.

Issue 2: Misrepresentation of facts regarding Supreme Court appeal
The Tribunal scrutinized the applicant's claim of approaching the Supreme Court for directions related to the deposit amount. The applicant had initially stated that the Supreme Court had ordered them to deposit a specific sum, which they complied with by depositing the entire customs duty amount. However, upon further examination, it was revealed that the applicant had not filed any appeal before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant's submission regarding the Supreme Court's order was misleading and false. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the partner of the appellant company for submitting false averments in the application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application for restoration of the appeal due to the applicant's misrepresentation of facts regarding the Supreme Court's involvement and the deposit amount directive. The Tribunal found that the applicant had made false claims about approaching the Supreme Court, leading to the imposition of a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the partner of the appellant company. The decision was based on the discrepancy between the applicant's assertions and the actual legal proceedings, highlighting the importance of truthfulness and accuracy in legal representations.