Remand for fresh consideration where a preventive-vs-punitive regulation argument was not urged before the Tribunal and remained undecided.

The HC set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration because the respondent's contention that Regulation 11(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 could be used only as a preventive measure, and not punitively, had not been urged before the Tribunal and was therefore not examined below. With the parties agreeing to fresh scrutiny, the Court declined to decide the merits, kept all contentions open, and restored the appeal before the Tribunal; the suspension order stood revived pending disposal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order setting aside the continuation of suspension of the CFS approval was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, since the contention pressed before the Court had not been urged before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Court noted that the respondent's submission before it, namely that Regulation 11(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 could be invoked only as a preventive measure and not as a punitive action, had not been canvassed before the Tribunal. As that proposition had not been considered below, the Tribunal had recorded no finding on it. In these circumstances, and with the parties agreeing to a fresh examination, the appropriate course was to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal before the Tribunal. The Court expressly refrained from entering into the merits and kept all contentions open.

Conclusion: The impugned Tribunal order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration, with the suspension order revived pending disposal of the appeal.

---