1992 (9) TMI 213 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether certain questions of law should have been referred to the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta.
2. Whether the applicants have the right to require the Tribunal to refer specific questions of law to the Hon'ble High Court.
3. Whether the principle of Res Judicata applies in this case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The applicant Company filed a Miscellaneous Application claiming that vital questions of law were omitted while framing questions for reference to the Hon'ble High Court. The questions related to the applicability of certain Public Notices and Orders to their transactions. The applicant argued that these questions should have been referred to the High Court, citing relevant judgments. The Counsel contended that previous decisions by the Tribunal supported their stance, emphasizing the relevance of the questions raised.

Issue 2: The Tribunal deliberated on whether the applicants had the right to demand the referral of specific questions of law to the High Court. The Tribunal noted that the questions raised by the applicants did not directly arise from the Tribunal's order, which was the responsibility of the Collector of Customs. The Tribunal had already referred two questions to the High Court based on the Collector's enumeration. It was clarified that the applicants did not possess the right to compel the Tribunal to refer their questions to the High Court, and any relevant subsequent Supreme Court decisions could be presented before the High Court by the applicants.

Issue 3: The principle of Res Judicata was raised by the applicants, arguing that certain judgments had attained finality as no appeals were made against them. However, the Tribunal highlighted that the question of Res Judicata was not raised during the initial appeals, and the questions the applicants sought to refer were already addressed in the questions previously referred to the High Court. The Tribunal emphasized that questions for reference should be raised, argued, and dealt with before the Tribunal to be referred, as per established legal principles. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicants.

In a separate assent, another Member of the Tribunal concurred with the decision, adding that the applicants, as respondents in the earlier Reference Matter, were not entitled to raise additional points for reference at a later stage. The Member noted that the applicants had missed the opportunity to file a Memorandum of Cross Objection within the prescribed timeline, barring them from introducing new points for reference. As a result, the application to include additional points in the Reference to the High Court was dismissed.