9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962. Directions to not to hear the appeal by the Technical member whose appointment was challenged by the Advocate of the petitioner in the honourable Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- Not only the law of equity but the interest of justice would warrant that any litigant would expect the hearing of the matter in the most unbiased and impartial manner. It is a matter of record that touring member (technical member of Bengalure) was the fifth respondent in the writ petition in the Supreme Court which has been now disposed of pending framing of the Rules, the outcome of the rule is not disclosed to this Court. But the fact of the matter is, the apprehension expressed cannot be said to be far-fetched for the reason, the presi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rashtra and at Cochin. On 17.6.2015, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Cochin seized the consignments of footballs covered by eight shipping bills from the premises of Gateway Distripark, Kerala Ltd in the purported belief that the same were being attempted for export in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Even consignment of six shipping bill was also seized on 18.6.2015. Statements of various persons including that of Sri.Mansukh Jagda, were recorded purported to be under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. On 24.6.2015, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam remanded the petitioner to the custody of DRI officers for one day. By invoking the provisions of the Customs Act, the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned on the premise that the petitioner availed the service of Mr.Niveet Seth, as his advocate to represent him before the Appellate Tribunal, but thereafter came to know that he had filed WP(C) No.205/2018 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16.2.2018 passed by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Secretariat of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet whereby five persons were nominated to be appointed as Technical Members of CESTAT. The honorable Supreme Court ordered to implead them as respondents Nos. 4 to 8 in the aforementioned writ petition. Later the honorable Supreme Court vide order dated 13.11.2019 dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Honorable Supreme Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the documents. As far as the relief of the petitioner for transfer of the appeal from CESTAT at Bangaluru to Mumbai is concerned, the same cannot be accepted by this Court as this court do not have any jurisdiction to pass such order. At this stage, the learned counsel submits that he would not press this prayer but would make an appropriate application to the Appellate Tribunal purportedly under sub-section 6 of Section 129(C) of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the aforementioned prayer, this Court refrains from adjudicating the first prayer. 8. Now coming in to the second relief, I am of the view that not only the law of equity b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
