2016 (4) TMI 488 - AT - Customs

Assessment of duty - Matter of appellant was not considered in its correct perspective - Held that - this applicant instead of pursuing available legal remedies against our final order, filed various miscellaneous applications which were all disposed of by the tribunal and the last miscellaneous application was also disposed of. This miscellaneous application which has been filed is also vague and is in continuation of various miscellaneous applications filed. Therefore, as the applicant in this miscellaneous application has not been able to bring out any issue for consideration of the bench, the miscellaneous applications are dismissed. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of duty in final order in appeal No. C/1070/97-Mum.
2. Correct perspective of final order dated 18/10/2002.
3. Dismissal of appeals and miscellaneous applications by the Tribunal.
4. Vagueness of miscellaneous applications filed by the appellant.
5. Lack of merit in the miscellaneous application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an application filed by the appellant regarding the assessed duty in the final order in appeal No. C/1070/97-Mum. The appellant argued that the final order dated 18/10/2002 by the tribunal did not consider the matter in the correct perspective.

2. Upon considering submissions and records, it was observed that the appellant had filed various miscellaneous applications instead of pursuing available legal remedies against the final order dated 18.10.2002. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's applications were vague and lacked specific issues for consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to bring out any substantial issue for the bench's consideration.

3. The Tribunal highlighted that previous miscellaneous applications filed by the appellant were dismissed, and the last application was also found to be devoid of merits. The Tribunal referenced specific orders where the appellant's appeals were dismissed due to limitations, and subsequent rectification of mistake and miscellaneous applications were also dismissed. As a result, the Tribunal determined that no further action was required in the appeals.

4. The judgment emphasized the pattern of vagueness in the appellant's miscellaneous applications, indicating a lack of substantive legal arguments or issues raised for review. The Tribunal concluded that the current miscellaneous application was a continuation of the previous vague filings and did not present any valid grounds for consideration.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application as devoid of merits, highlighting the failure to present any significant issues or legal arguments warranting the bench's attention. The decision was based on the appellant's repeated filing of vague applications without substantial legal content or grounds for review.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning behind dismissing the appellant's miscellaneous application.