1999 (2) TMI 218 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Denies Applicant's Request for Order Modification, Emphasizes Compliance with CHA License Rules

EAGLE TRANSPORT SERVICES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MUMBAI

EAGLE TRANSPORT SERVICES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MUMBAI - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 53 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Application for modification of Tribunal's order.2. Review of Tribunal's order.3. Grounds for rectification of errors.4. Consideration of various grounds raised by the applicant.5. Allegations regarding shipping bills and CHA license suspension.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with an application for the modification of the Tribunal's order dated 19-4-1997, which dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. The applicant sought a review of the order based on advice from the High Court judges after a writ petition. The High Court had adjourned the matter for six weeks, prompting the applicant to file an application for review before the Tribunal.2. The applicant's counsel acknowledged that the Tribunal lacked the power to review its orders but requested the application to be treated as one for rectification of errors. The Tribunal examined the 13 grounds presented in the application, noting that some grounds were not relevant to the order under consideration. The Tribunal clarified misconceptions regarding the age of individuals and the grounds raised for leniency.3. Various contentions were raised by the applicant, including issues related to the export of goods, cross-examination, test reports, malafide cooperation by customs officers, and the retraction of statements. The Tribunal found that these contentions were not part of the appeal memorandum or argued before the Tribunal, thus not forming the basis for rectification.4. Regarding the allegation of providing blank shipping bills, the Tribunal clarified that the factual accuracy of the statement was not challenged during the appeal process. The Tribunal's findings were based on distinguishing factors in determining penalties, and no error was found in this regard.5. The judgment also addressed the applicant's claims of leniency in CHA license suspension cases. The Tribunal highlighted distinctions in previous cases and emphasized the need for compliance with rules governing license revocation. The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that no error was evident on the record, and reiterated the importance of adhering to regulations regarding CHA licenses.