9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal 2. Claim for Restitution 3. Claim for Compensation 4. Claim for Interest Summary: 1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal addressed whether it had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the issues raised in the application. It concluded that it could not hear an appeal against its own orders, nor was it empowered to review its own orders. The statutory provisions only allow for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record u/s 129-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The application did not plead any errors requiring rectification, nor did it seek any clarification that the Tribunal could provide within its jurisdiction. 2. Claim for Restitution: The Tribunal examined whether the application could be considered a claim for restitution under principles analogous to S. 144 of the C.P.C. It found that restitution is confined to cases where a decree or order made by a court is varied or reversed. The Tribunal noted that the confiscation order had become final and was not reversed or modified. The fine in lieu of confiscation was reduced, but the payment was optional and not compelled by a decree. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the claim for restitution was not maintainable. 3. Claim for Compensation: The Tribunal considered the claim for compensation for "tremendous losses and agony undergone by the appellants." It found that the applicant had voluntarily paid the fines and incurred expenses for a bank guarantee. The Tribunal noted that compensation for voluntary acts in quasi-criminal proceedings is not sustainable. It also highlighted that the applicant did not quantify the alleged losses or disclose any profits earned from the redeemed goods. The Tribunal concluded that the claim for compensation was not justified. 4. Claim for Interest: The Tribunal addressed the claim for interest on the excess fines paid in cash and the commission on the guarantee. It found that the Customs Act, 1962, does not provide for the payment of interest on refunded fines. The Tribunal noted that interest is awarded in cases of compulsory acquisition under statutory provisions, but confiscation is penal in nature and not comparable to compulsory acquisition. The Tribunal concluded that the claim for interest was not maintainable as it was not part of the consequential relief ordered by the Tribunal. Conclusion: The application was dismissed as it lacked merit and was deemed frivolous. The Tribunal held that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claims, and the claims for restitution, compensation, and interest were not justified under the circumstances.
|
