PEE JAY INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGISTRY has not placed the order dated 5 -12 -2012 returning the reference passed by me before the Hon'ble Vice -President on 27 -2 -2013. Reason why difference was returned was clearly described in the order. It may be stated that a decision flows from facts settled on the basis of law and evidence. But that was not done by the division bench as no material facts were recorded nor evidence testing the facts recorded. Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble President along with order passed by me on 5 -12 -2012, as in a reference third Member has neither revisional jurisdiction nor appellate jurisdiction to hear the appeal to settle facts. Expressing the difficulties in para 17 of the order, it was stated that it is necessary to settle the material facts by the original bench to reach to a proper conclusion and state difference if any arises thereafter to third member fore resolution of difference. For the reason stated above, the matter is returned to registry to place before the Hon'ble President for appropriate order.

(2.) SHRI Baig, ld. DR says that the registry has not issued a copy of the order dated 5 -12 -2012 passed by me. So also Shri Narasimhan, ld. Counsel says that he has also not received copy of the same. It is strange why the parties to the appeal are kept in dark as to outcome of a proceeding without issue of copies to them. Registry is directed to maintain transparency and issue copy of the order dated 5 -12 -2012 to both sides for their reference.