Tribunal rejects late foreign auditors' certificate, emphasizes procedural rules and diligence.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's attempt to introduce a certificate from foreign auditors as additional evidence in the case. Despite arguments emphasizing its importance, the Tribunal sided with the opposing party, highlighting the appellant's failure to present the document earlier in the proceedings. The Tribunal deemed the belated submission as lacking diligence and against established procedural rules, leading to the rejection of the additional evidence and the dismissal of the application seeking its admission.

---

---

Issues:
Admissibility of a certificate issued by foreign auditors as additional evidence in the case.

Analysis:
The appellant sought to produce a certificate from foreign auditors to support their claim regarding the inclusion of certain costs in the invoice value. The certificate was dated 31st October, 2002, and was intended to demonstrate that the costs had been paid by the manufacturer, aligning with the appellant's plea before the authority.

The learned Counsel argued in favor of admitting the certificate, emphasizing that it was crucial evidence. However, the SDR opposed the submission, questioning the verifiability of a certificate from a foreign company and alleging that allowing such fresh evidence would be an attempt to cover up earlier shortcomings. The SDR contended that all evidence should have been presented at the initial stage of adjudication.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal agreed with the SDR's stance. It was noted that the appellant had multiple opportunities to present the certificate earlier, including during the initial hearing and before the original authority. The document in question was procured after the appeal had already been filed, indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the appellant. As per established procedure rules, documents not part of the initial proceedings cannot be introduced later to fill gaps. Therefore, the belated production of the certificate was deemed unacceptable, and the additional evidence was rejected. The misc. application seeking its admission was consequently dismissed.

---