Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction & Forum Shopping. Liberty to Approach Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The appeal was dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction and forum shopping by the appellant. The merits of the case were not addressed, and the appellant was granted liberty to approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Examination of Customs Department officers.
2. Presumption under Section 114(c) of the Evidence Act.
3. Burden of proof on the appellant.
4. Acceptance of shipping bills signed by the Master of the vessel.
5. Acceptance of the letter dated 28.02.1996 from the Flag Officer, Commander-in-Chief.
6. Conclusion on forged signatures of Naval Officers.
7. Rejection of retracted statements by employees.
8. Assumption of truth in letters from Naval Authorities.
9. Presumption of genuineness of letters from Naval Authorities.
10. Finding on non-supply of goods.
11. Adverse decision against the appellant for non-supply of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Examination of Customs Department Officers:
The Tribunal concluded that the goods were not delivered to the Naval Authority despite no examination of the Customs Officers who signed the Shipping Bills. The appellant argued that without proving collusion, the Tribunal's conclusion was unjustified.

2. Presumption under Section 114(c) of the Evidence Act:
The Tribunal presumed the Naval Authorities' report as final and true without examining any Naval Authorities or proving the corresponding letters. The appellant contested this presumption, arguing it was not substantiated by evidence.

3. Burden of Proof on the Appellant:
The Tribunal stated that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof by not providing rebuttal evidence, despite the appellant producing original Shipping Bills. The appellant maintained that the original documents should have sufficed to prove their case.

4. Acceptance of Shipping Bills Signed by the Master of the Vessel:
The Tribunal did not accept the Shipping Bills endorsed by the Master of the vessel, who is the Competent Authority for certifying receipt of goods. The appellant argued that these endorsements should have been considered valid evidence of delivery.

5. Acceptance of the Letter Dated 28.02.1996 from the Flag Officer, Commander-in-Chief:
The Tribunal accepted the letter without examining its author or the person in charge of the section. The appellant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine, challenging the letter's acceptance as per the Evidence Act.

6. Conclusion on Forged Signatures of Naval Officers:
The Tribunal concluded the signatures of Naval Officers were forged without examining the officers or comparing the alleged forged signatures with admitted ones. The appellant argued this conclusion was reached without adequate proof.

7. Rejection of Retracted Statements by Employees:
The Tribunal rejected the retraction of statements by the appellant's employees, despite no challenge or summons by the Department. The appellant argued that the statute provides for such contingencies, and the retraction should have been accepted as genuine.

8. Assumption of Truth in Letters from Naval Authorities:
The Tribunal assumed the truth of letters from Naval Authorities, obtained at the behest of Customs Authorities, without examining the officers or proving the contents as per law. The appellant contended this assumption was unsustainable.

9. Presumption of Genuineness of Letters from Naval Authorities:
The Tribunal presumed the genuineness of letters from Naval Authorities despite challenges and production of original Shipping Bills by the appellant. The appellant argued that without corroboration from other evidence in possession of Naval Authorities, this presumption was incorrect.

10. Finding on Non-Supply of Goods:
The Tribunal found that goods were not supplied, ignoring the procedure followed by the Bond Officer, Master of the Ship, and Customs Authorities. The appellant argued that none of these officers were examined, and the procedure was adhered to.

11. Adverse Decision Against the Appellant for Non-Supply of Goods:
The Tribunal took an adverse decision against the appellant for non-supply, despite the goods being kept in a Bond House with a double lock system, one key held by Customs Authorities. The appellant argued it was impossible to remove goods without Customs' concurrence, and no collusion was alleged in the show cause notice.

Preliminary Objection and Jurisdiction:
The appeal was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal and authorities involved were situated in Visakhapatnam and Hyderabad, not within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The conduct of the appellant amounted to "forum shopping," further justifying the dismissal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction and forum shopping by the appellant. The merits of the appellant's case were not addressed in this judgment. The appellant was given the liberty to approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

---