2019 (3) TMI 623 - AT - Customs

Appeal Restoration Denied Due to Procedural Non-compliance

Lalit Mange, Ami Clearing & Forwarding Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export) Nhavasheva

The applications for restoration of two appeals were rejected by the Tribunal due to the applicant's lack of diligence in updating their address with the ... Restoration of appeal - matter disposed off ex-parte - principles of natural justice - Held that:- The matter was, indeed, disposed of ex parte by the Tribunal albeit with elaborate findings. There is also no doubt that notice had been issued. Learned Counsel, while submitting that the applicant had changed their address, does not contest that they had failed to inform so to the Registry and that the appellant had opted to be without legal representation for a quite a while - In the various decisions cited, the substantive issue, as pointed out by Learned Authorised Representative, was the dismissal of appeals without going into the merit of the grounds. That is not so here and such is not the plea of the Learned Counsel. Effectively, what is pleaded for by Learned Counsel now is not the right to be heard but the right to be represented by proper counsel. Principles of natural justice cannot be stretched that far. Appeal dismissed. Issues: Restoration of appeal due to insufficiency of notice.The judgment pertains to an application seeking the restoration of two appeals filed against an order-in-original dated 14th December 2007. The primary contention raised was the alleged insufficiency of notice leading to the disposal of the appeals without proper consideration. The applicant's counsel argued extensively on various grounds, emphasizing the need for a re-hearing based on precedents such as Intron Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise and JK Synthetics Ltd v Collector of Central Excise. However, the Tribunal noted that the matter was disposed of ex parte, with notice issued, and highlighted the applicant's failure to update their address with the Registry or seek legal representation in a timely manner. The Tribunal distinguished this case from others cited by the counsel, as the issue here was not the dismissal of appeals on merit but rather the lack of diligence on the part of the applicant in protecting their interests. The judgment emphasized that the right to representation by proper counsel does not extend to the right to be heard, and principles of natural justice cannot be stretched beyond reasonable limits. Consequently, the applications for restoration were rejected based on the applicant's lack of diligence in safeguarding their interests and failure to comply with procedural requirements.