Sufficient cause for non-appearance in customs appeal was not established, so refusal to recall the Tribunal order stood.

The Madras HC upheld the Tribunal's refusal to recall its earlier order and restore the appeal because no sufficient cause was shown for the appellant's non-appearance. The explanation that counsel was occupied in another matter was found inadequate, especially given the repeated adjournments and the prolonged conduct of the customs dispute since 1992. In proceedings concerning the attempted export of sandalwood chips on the basis of allegedly fabricated documents, the Court held that the appellant had not justified interference with the Tribunal's decision to decline recall.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to recall its earlier order and in declining restoration of the appeal on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the appellant's non-appearance.

Analysis: The appeal arose from long-pending customs proceedings concerning attempted export of sandalwood chips on the strength of allegedly fabricated documents. The Tribunal had earlier decided the appeal on merits and, when the appellant later sought recall under the procedural rules, the Court examined whether the explanation for absence amounted to sufficient cause. The explanation that counsel was held up in another matter was found inadequate, particularly in the backdrop of repeated adjournments and prolonged conduct of the litigation since 1992. The Court held that the appellant had not established any sufficient cause to justify non-appearance or to warrant interference with the Tribunal's refusal to recall the order.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and the refusal to recall the Tribunal's order was upheld.

---