Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 06.05.1999 and 12.11.2001 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was bringing 420 quintals garlic alleged to have been purchased in Nepal after storing them in re-usable sacks in India. When the said consignment was in transit, it was intercepted by the Custom authorities and was seized mainly on the ground that the garlic in question was of a Chinese origin. The inference that the said garlic was of a Chinese origin was drawn on the basis, (1) sack in which the garlic was stored contained Chinese description and trade information was received from petty trader at Gorakhpur that garlic are not grown at Nepal and secondly, Sri Yogesh Kumar Bhimsarya gave statement that garlic was of Chinese origin. In the adjudication proceeding. Commissioner of Customs (P), Lucknow vide its order dated 8th March, 1999 confiscated the goods and also confiscated trucks which were being used for the transportation of said garlic and also imposed penalty on Sri Yogesh Kumar Bhimsarya. Against the order of the Commissioner Customs, petitioner filed appeal before the CEGAT. CEGAT vide order dated 16.04.1999 confirmed the confiscation of the garlic and has reduced the amount of penalty levied on the petitioner to Rs. one lac. Thereafter, petitioner filed miscellaneous application on the ground that the material evidence, namely, Custom Certificates which were along with the goods and have been referred during the course of the hearing of the appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to look into the certificate of origin dated 09.09.1994 filed at page 30 of the paper books, bill of entry No. 1174 of 1994 dated 09.09.1994 filed at page No. 25 of the paper book and failed to give any finding with regard to certificate issued by Nepali Custom Office in response to the query raised by the Indian Customs with regard to Chinese markings which was available at page 24 of the paper book. On the aforesaid grounds the petitioner sought to recall his full of mistake and the appeal be decided afresh on consideration of the aforesaid documents which are relevant for coming to the conclusion whether the alleged garlic were Nepal origin or Chinese origin. Said application has been dismissed by the CEGAT vide order dated 29.10.1991 which is impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.;