2014 (8) TMI 911 - AT - Customs

Restoration of Appeal - Importation of computer bags - Plea to recall Tribunal order on the ground that valuation issue was not addressed - Held that - Court had examined the bag produced before us in the course of appeal hearing on 03.04.2013 in great detail. That was visible as computer bag to the nacked eye with different features therein including safety cushion to accommodate a laptop which is a delicate instrument being (electronic goods) with memory needing cushion for its resting. Order was passed upon physical examination holding the bag produced before us was computer bag. On the basis of material components, compartments available in the bag and its capability to accommodate laptop computer inside, that enabled us to come to the conclusion that the goods presented for physical verification was computer bag. But that was mis-declared as school bag. Mis-declaration of the description of goods resulted in fraud against Revenue. Once fraud surfaced, the imports did not call for any consideration for further relief to the appellant on valuation. The bag presented during hearing of this application was altogether different from the bag produced during appeal hearing. The facts and evidence recorded in the appeal order passed is conclusive proof of the pleadings made by both sides and evidence adduced in the bar. Present application is in disguise a review application and Tribunal having no power of review in absence of statutory conferment thereof, that is liable to the dismissed - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of dismissed appeal based on alleged errors in the previous order.
2. Allegations of mis-declaration of goods and valuation aspect.
3. Cross-examination of evidence and failure of justice.
4. Review application in absence of statutory provision.

Issue 1: The appellant sought restoration of the appeal dismissed on 03.04.2013, claiming that the advocate failed to present all facts before the Bench. The appellant also filed an application for rectification of a mistake apparent from the order. The appellant approached the Tribunal after seeking leave from the High Court, where the appeal was pending for hearing on 5th December 2013.

Issue 2: The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not considering the specific valuation plea and wrongly concluded the goods were computer bags, leading to a penalty. The appellant contended that evidence was used without cross-examination, and the valuation depended on the nature of the imported bag. However, the Revenue asserted that the Tribunal correctly rejected the plea, considering the mis-declaration of goods and the new bag presented during the hearing.

Issue 3: The appellant raised concerns about evidence gathering and lack of cross-examination, leading to a failure of justice. The appellant argued that the initial examination only found a minor quantity of computer bags, which later turned into a different allegation. The appellant claimed a preconceived notion led to the misclassification of the goods.

Issue 4: The Tribunal declined to entertain the application for recalling the order, citing the lack of statutory power for review. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that review is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained without specific provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of rectification of mistakes and dismissed the application accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld its previous order, emphasizing the importance of statutory provisions regarding review applications and rectification of mistakes. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the issues raised by both parties and legal principles governing such matters.