KISHIN S. LOUNGANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai and for issuance of further directions not to hear the appeal by the Technical member whose appointment was challenged 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 and Company, being a sole proprietor indulging in import and export 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 consignments of footballs covered by eight shipping bills from the premises of Gateway Distripark, Kerala Ltd in the purported belief that the same were being attempted 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 various 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 Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam remanded the petitioner to the custody of DRI officers 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 Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide order dated 26.8.2015 reduced the quantum of bank guarantee to Rs.20 lakhs. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Cochin issued a show cause notice dated 11.12.2015 by rejecting the declared 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 Section 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, redumption 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.