1992 (9) TMI 184 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Admissibility of additional evidence.
2. Relevance and timing of the evidence.
3. Compliance with legal provisions for additional evidence.
4. Impact of additional evidence on the adjudication process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Additional Evidence:

The primary issue was whether the additional evidence presented by the respondent-Collector should be admitted. The evidence included statements, declarations, and a handwriting expert's report. The respondent argued that this evidence was crucial for determining the authenticity of a Will and the ownership of seized gold pieces. However, the appellant opposed the admission, arguing that the evidence was available before the adjudication order was passed and did not meet the criteria for admissibility under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Relevance and Timing of the Evidence:

The Tribunal examined the relevance and timing of each piece of evidence. The statement of Shri Tejmal Gang dated 13-5-1987 was allowed because it was connected to the authenticity of the Will. However, the declarations of Smt. Nazma and Shri Mohammed Farzan, dated after the adjudication order, were not admitted. The statement of Shri Abdul Sattar dated 24-4-1984 was admitted due to its relevance to the Will's authenticity. A letter from Smt. Nazma to the Bank of Baroda, questioning the Will's authenticity, was also admitted. However, the handwriting expert's report, which only provided a prima facie opinion, was not admitted because it was not conclusive.

3. Compliance with Legal Provisions for Additional Evidence:

The Tribunal referred to Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which regulates the production of additional evidence in appellate courts. The rule allows additional evidence if it was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced despite due diligence. The Tribunal found that some of the evidence met this criterion and was relevant to the case. However, the evidence that was available before the adjudication order or was not conclusive was not admitted.

4. Impact of Additional Evidence on the Adjudication Process:

The Tribunal considered whether admitting the additional evidence would enable it to pass a more informed judgment. The admitted evidence was deemed necessary for determining the authenticity of the Will and the ownership of the seized gold. However, the Tribunal also noted that admitting inconclusive or post-adjudication evidence would reopen the case and potentially lead to a de novo trial, which was not permissible.

Separate Judgments Delivered:

The Technical Member allowed some of the additional evidence, emphasizing its relevance to the case. However, the Judicial Member rejected all the additional evidence, arguing that it would make out a new case or strengthen the respondent's case unfairly. The Judicial Member's opinion was supported by legal precedents that restrict the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Final Order:

In view of the majority opinion, the application to admit the additional evidence was rejected. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not meet the criteria for admissibility and would not be allowed to be taken on record.