9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay, ordering confiscation of the goods imported, giving them option under Section 125 of the Customs Act to pay, in lieu of such confiscation, fine of Rs. 75,000/- and also imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In the appeal against the said order, the appellants raised the following grounds : (a) There is no justification for this view of the Additional Collector. For were that be so. The foreign suppliers would not have written to the Customs Department on 8th September, 1987, informing the Department that the goods had been wrongly shipped and therefore should be returned. (b) The foreign suppliers are prepared to accept the goods and no payment need be made for the goods. The appellants do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l may please permit the appellants to clear the goods under terms and conditions deemed fit. 5. Shri Amit Desai, the learned advocate for the applicants, at the time of hearing, however, submitted that the prayer in this application is for restoration of the order of the Additional Collector and not for deciding the whole matter again. He submitted that, he would confine his arguments only for modification in the relief granted and would not go into the merits, as regards the order of confiscation. 6. Advancing his arguments on the said point, Shri Amit Desai brought out the facts and submitted that as is evident from the letter of the suppliers dated 7-7-1989, the suppliers have backed out from the earlier commitment to receive back th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that virtually he was asking for restoration of the order of the Additional Collector in toto. As regards the power of the Tribunal, the learned advocate submitted that powers of the Tribunal are the same as those of the Civil Courts and the Tribunal is empowered to rectify the mistake even of the present nature and to modify the order passed earlier and cited before us the decision of the CEGAT Special Bench A New Delhi in Collector of Central Excise v. EID Parry (India) Ltd. reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 139 (Tribunal) and also the decision of the Bombay High Court in New India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay reported in AIR 1958 Bombay 143 and the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to go into the merits as to the genuineness of the letter, as the main question to be considered by us here is, whether this Tribunal has powers to entertain the prayer of the nature made here. 9. Undisputedly, the Tribunal is not invested with unlimited powers. The only powers invested in the Tribunal are incorporated under Section 129-B(2). The said provision reads thus : The Appellate Tribunal, may at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by the Collector of Customs or the other party to the appeal. 10. Sub-section 4 of the said Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not intended to hold that all those inherent powers including the power of review invested under the Civil Courts stood automatically invested in the Tribunal. 12. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. EID Parry (India) Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal had before it, a set of facts where, errors was on account of overlooking of the evidence which was already on record. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi (supra) over which the Tribunal has placed reliance also the question was of exercise of powers impliedly invested in the Tribunal by virtue of some specific powers existing. In L.M.L. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) the question before the Tribunal was of a pul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y valid import licence held by them, the applicants had already procured the licence for import of such goods and that on the date of hearing of the appeal, they were in possession of a valid licence under which they could import these goods and that, therefore, they may be permitted to import the said goods under the said subsequently obtained licence. The said prayer however was not considered by the Bench. The Bench however having felt it justified to permit the applicants to re-export the goods passed the orders accordingly. 14. A plea was raised that the order has become infructuous in view of the fact that the suppliers were not inclined to take back the goods. The exigency that have arisen making the order infructuous in the eyes o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
