Court Upholds Technical Member Appointment, Redirects Appeal for Fair Hearing.

The court declined to transfer the appeal from the South Zonal Bench to the West Zonal Bench but allowed the petitioner to apply to the Appellate Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the technical member's appointment and directed the appeal to be heard by different members to avoid prejudice. The court emphasized the need for an impartial hearing and ensured fairness by assigning a different touring member for the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Transfer of appeal from South Zonal Bench to West Zonal Bench
2. Challenge to technical member's appointment in Supreme Court
3. Apprehension of prejudice in appeal hearing

Transfer of Appeal from South Zonal Bench to West Zonal Bench:
The petitioner, a 73-year-old resident of Mumbai, sought the transfer of Appeal No.C/20005/2020 from the South Zonal Bench of the Appellate Tribunal at Karnataka to the West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. The petitioner, engaged in import and export business, faced issues with the seizure of goods by Custom Officers in Maharashtra and Cochin. The appeal process involved various orders, penalties, and confiscation of goods. The petitioner's counsel argued for the transfer due to the petitioner's senior citizen status and the lack of a regular bench with two members in Bangalore. The respondent opposed the transfer, citing jurisdictional constraints. Ultimately, the court refrained from ordering the transfer but allowed the petitioner to make an application to the Appellate Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962.

Challenge to Technical Member's Appointment in Supreme Court:
The petitioner's advocate raised concerns regarding the technical member, P. Anjali Kumar, assigned to the Bangalore Bench, whose appointment was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition related to the appointment, allowing the technical members to continue until new appointment rules were framed. The petitioner feared prejudice in the appeal hearing due to this association. The court acknowledged the need for an unbiased hearing and directed that the appeal pending before the CESTAT at Bangalore be heard by a judicial member and a different touring member than the one assigned for Bangalore, specifically excluding certain technical members mentioned in the Supreme Court writ petition.

Apprehension of Prejudice in Appeal Hearing:
The court emphasized the importance of an impartial hearing and recognized the petitioner's concerns about potential bias in the appeal process. Noting the involvement of a technical member who was a respondent in the Supreme Court writ petition, the court directed that a different touring member be assigned for the appeal hearing to ensure fairness and impartiality. This decision aimed to uphold the principles of equity and justice, ensuring that the appeal proceedings are conducted in an unbiased manner, free from any apprehensions of prejudice.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of transfer of appeal, challenge to the technical member's appointment, and apprehension of prejudice in the appeal hearing, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment delivered by the High Court.

---