1987 (5) TMI 205 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Denies Referral Application Under Customs Act Section 130 - Legal Issues Not Warranting High Court Intervention

The Tribunal rejected the application for referral under Section 130 of the Customs Act, as none of the points raised required High Court intervention. ... Questions of law already resolved or settled by High Court not referable Issues:1. Referral of points of law under Section 130 of the Customs Act arising from Tribunal's order.Analysis:1. The applicant sought referral of points of law based on various contentions. The first issue was regarding the applicant's discharge in a criminal case by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and its impact on the penalty imposed. The Tribunal cited the judgment of the Bombay High Court in a similar case, stating that the acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically affect adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act. Therefore, this point did not require referral to the High Court.2. The next issue raised was the denial of a Senior Counsel's services during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal ruled that the availability of a specific counsel does not affect the right to a fair hearing under Section 129B of the Customs Act. As the denial of a Senior Counsel was not a legal question arising from the Tribunal's order, it did not warrant referral.3. The third point concerned the acceptance of evidence linking the applicant to smuggling without a handwriting expert's opinion. The Tribunal clarified that this issue pertained to the evaluation of evidence, not a legal question. The evidence was considered valid by the lower authorities and the Tribunal, thus not necessitating referral.4. The fourth contention revolved around the absence of a confessional statement by the applicant. The Tribunal noted that this was a factual matter, not an interpretation of law, and therefore did not qualify for referral to the High Court.5. The fifth issue involved the reliance on a co-accused's statement without independent corroboration. The Tribunal clarified that in adjudication proceedings, affected parties are respondents, not co-accused, and their statements are admissible as evidence. This point did not require referral based on established legal principles.6. The final argument was about the alleged non-compliance with natural justice principles by the Collector. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 130 of the Customs Act allows referral only for legal questions arising from its order, not procedural fairness issues. As the alleged non-compliance did not stem from the Tribunal's order, it was not deemed suitable for referral.7. The Tribunal rejected the application for referral, concluding that none of the points raised necessitated High Court intervention based on the detailed analysis provided for each contention.8. In a separate opinion, another member concurred with the rejection, highlighting that issues related to natural justice and evidence appreciation were not legal questions for referral. The settled legal principles and lack of grounds for review further supported the rejection of the application.This comprehensive analysis outlines the Tribunal's decision on each point of law raised by the applicant, emphasizing the legal basis for rejecting the referral application under Section 130 of the Customs Act.