2010 (5) TMI 248 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal dismisses appeal grounds and import info request for not meeting conditions

ICOMM TELE LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (I), ACC, MUMBAI

ICOMM TELE LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (I), ACC, MUMBAI - 2010 (256) E.L.T. 579 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Application seeking leave to incorporate an additional ground in the memo-of-appeal.2. Application seeking direction to the department for information on imports made by specific parties.Issue 1: Application seeking leave to incorporate an additional ground in the memo-of-appeal:The appellant filed two applications before the Tribunal, one of which sought to include an alternative claim for the benefit of Serial No. 239 of a notification in the memo-of-appeal. The goods in question were imported in 2003, and assessments were provisionally made under a specific entry. The department later issued a show-cause notice for finalizing assessments without the benefit of a particular notification, leading to a demand for differential duty. The appellant sought to incorporate an alternative plea for the benefit of a different serial number in the notification. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and case law presented. The appellant's argument that the additional ground was a pure question of law was rejected. The Tribunal found that the proposed ground involved a mixed question of fact and law, specifically regarding whether the appellant held a license from the Department of Telecommunications to provide specified services. As the appellant did not satisfy the relevant condition, the Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that it cannot issue futile orders.Issue 2: Application seeking direction to the department for information on imports made by specific parties:The second application requested the department to provide information on imports made by certain parties, arguing that these imports would be contemporaneous for the purpose of Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had ample opportunity during the adjudication process to gather relevant information but failed to do so. The appellant's belated request for details on imports made by other parties was deemed haphazard and dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant could have obtained such information directly from the department or through the Right to Information Act earlier. The application was rejected, and the Tribunal scheduled the appeal for final hearing after disposing of both applications.This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed two key issues raised by the appellant regarding incorporating an additional ground in the memo-of-appeal and seeking information on imports made by specific parties. The Tribunal carefully analyzed the arguments, relevant case law, and the facts of the case before dismissing both applications. The decision emphasized the importance of timely and relevant submissions during the adjudication process and highlighted the need to avoid seeking information belatedly through Tribunal applications.