2005 (4) TMI 85 - HC - Customs

High Court sets aside Tribunal orders, directs rehearing based on fresh evidence

JOGESH KUMAR BHIMSARYA Versus CEGAT, NEW DELHI

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's orders dated 6-5-1999 and 12-11-2001. ... Appellate order - Re-calling of Issues:Challenge to orders passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi on the seizure of garlic consignment alleged to be of Chinese origin.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the orders dated 6-5-1999 and 12-11-2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, regarding the seizure of a garlic consignment alleged to be of Chinese origin. The Commissioner of Customs (P), Lucknow had confiscated the goods and imposed penalties based on the belief that the garlic was of Chinese origin, supported by various pieces of evidence. The petitioner filed an appeal before the CEGAT, which confirmed the confiscation but reduced the penalty. Subsequently, a miscellaneous application was filed to present additional evidence, including certificates and documents, to prove the garlic's Nepali origin. However, the CEGAT dismissed the application, leading to the present writ petition challenging this decision.The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to consider crucial pieces of evidence, such as the certificate of origin dated 9-9-1994 and the Bill of Entry No. 1174 of 1994, which were part of the record. The Tribunal's rejection of the application was deemed illegal as it did not address the material evidence presented. The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the Tribunal's failure to consider essential documents amounted to a mistake apparent on the record. It stressed that the Tribunal, as a court of fact, should have examined and recorded findings on all relevant documents submitted before it.Citing legal precedents, the High Court highlighted the Tribunal's obligation to consider all material evidence when reaching a decision. It referenced the case of Laxmi Electronic Corporation Limited v. CIT to support the position that the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes, especially when crucial evidence has not been adequately addressed. Additionally, reliance was placed on cases such as Income Tax Officer v. ITA and CIT v. ITO to underscore the importance of considering all relevant evidence in judicial proceedings.Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's orders dated 6-5-1999 and 12-11-2001. It directed the Tribunal to rehear the appeal, emphasizing the need for a fresh consideration of the case based on all material evidence presented, particularly regarding the origin of the garlic consignment.