Page 115 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] KISHIN S. LOUNGANI v. UNION OF INDIA 25

[Judgment]. - Petitioner, aged 73 years, a permanent resident of Mumbai
has approached this Court seeking transfer of the Appeal No. C/20005/2020
from the South Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Karnataka to the West Zon-
al Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai and for issuance of further directions
not to hear the appeal by the Technical Member whose appointment was chal-
lenged by the Advocate of the petitioner in the honourable Supreme Court.
2. The petitioner is carrying on business under the name and style of
M/s. R. Kishin & Company, being a sole proprietor indulging in import and ex-
port of sports items. Import of goods valued at Rs. 7,62,50,396/- were allegedly
seized by the Custom Officers at Maharashtra and at Cochin. On 17-6-2015, the
officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Cochin seized the consign-
ments of footballs covered by eight shipping bills from the premises of Cateway
Distripark, Kerala Ltd. in the purported belief that the same were being attempt-
ed for export in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Even
consignment of six shipping bill was also seized on 18-6-2015. Statements of var-
ious persons including that of Sri Mansukh Jagda, were recorded purported to be
under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. On 24-6-2015, Additional Chief Judi-
cial Magistrate, Ernakulam remanded the petitioner to the custody of DRI offic-
ers for one day. By invoking the provisions of the Customs Act, the provisional
release of the goods seized live consignments was permitted by the adjudicating
authority on execution of a bond of Rs.4,72,65,400/- and a bank guarantee of Rs.
50,00,000/-. The aforementioned decision was appealed against and the Com-
missioner of Customs (Appeals) vide order dated 26-8-2015 reduced the quan-
tum of bank guarantee to Rs. 20 lakhs. The Additional Commissioner of Cus-
toms, Cochin issued a show cause notice dated 11-12-2015 by rejecting the de-
clared value of the export consignments of 14 shipping bills and re-determined
the amount including of the confiscated goods and proposed to impose a penalty
on the petitioner under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and
imposed penalties on other persons also.
3. The adjudicating Authority vide Ext.P1 dated 12-12-2017 Order-in-
Original No. 140/2017 imposed penalties, redemption of fines and confiscated
the goods. Against the aforementioned order, petitioner preferred an appeal
Bearing No. C27/12/SHB/2018/AU CUS. The aforementioned appeal has been
dismissed vide Ext.P2 order dated 24-6-2019. Being aggrieved of Ext.P2 order
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Cochin, petitioner preferred
an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(CESTAT), Bangalore which is stated to be pending hearing and final disposal.
4. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submit-
ted that the cause of action accrued for seeking the relief of the aforementioned
on the premise that the petitioner availed the service of Mr. Niveet Seth, as his
advocate to represent him before the Appellate Tribunal, but thereafter came to
know that he had filed W.P. (C) No. 205/2018 under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16-2-2018
passed by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Depart-
ment of Personnel and Training, Secretariat of the Appointments Committee of
the Cabinet whereby five persons were nominated to be appointed as Technical
Members of CESTAT. The honorable Supreme Court ordered to implead them as
respondents Nos. 4 to 8 in the aforementioned writ petition. Later the honourable
Supreme Court vide order dated 13-11-2019 disposed of the writ petition along
with the connected petitions, by granting certain reliefs, including interim
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  115