CRUICKSHANK AND CO LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants have preferred this application praying that they may be permitted to be joined as co-appellants. It is contended that the consignment of the goods in question were consigned to Chittagong Port and the applicants - Md. Lutfur Rahman and Mr. Joseph DeCosta, both of Bangladesh - were the consignees thereof. But due to some mistake at the time of off loading the cargo from the vessel in which these consignments had arrived at Chittagong, they were off-loaded and were re-loaded on another ship and the same were confiscated on arrival at Calcutta Port by the Customs Authorities. A Public Show Cause Notice was issued and on adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority concerned passed an order confiscating the consignment in question with an option to redeem the consignment on payment of Rs. 4,00,000.00 (Rupees four lakhs) only as redemption fine.

(2.) It is contended in this application and also by the Ld. Counsel, Sh. A. Roychowdhury for the applicants that it was obligatory for the Customs Authority to have issued notices to the present applicants who were the consignees of the consignment in question as this fact was borne out from the record which was in possession of the Adjudicating Authority. This fact has been mentioned in the order of adjudication itself. The applicants are the aggrieved persons and therefore, it is their contention that if they are not allowed to agitate this matter before this forum at this stage their interests will be in jeopardy.

(3.) NOW, on bare perusal of the Adjudication Order it appears that the appellants are held interested in this consignment inasmuch as they have been given option to redeem the goods. But it is obvious that the present appellants who are not interested in the consignment in question, cannot be interested in redeeming the consignment. Apart from this, there was no legal duty cast upon the appellants to inform the applicants. Because it appears that there is no connection between the two. NOW, as far as the procedural aspect is concerned this Tribunal is vested with some procedural powers prescribed under Civil Procedure Code. It is true that there is no specific mention about the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (regarding joining of the parties), but then, in our opinion, the criteria for deciding this type of application should be what shall be proper order in the interest of justice. We are convinced that if the applicants are not brought on record, the matter cannot be decided effectively and finally. Moreover, under provision of Section 129A of the Customs Act, any person aggrieved by any of the orders mentioned therein, can prefer an appeal. Prima facie, it can be seen that the applicants are aggrieved persons. The Ld. J.D.R. contends that they have no locus standi and in this connection, he has cited a case reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 974 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. We have carefully perused that citation. But it has no application to the facts of the present case.