9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 submitted 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 WP(C) No.205/2018 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16.2.2018 passed by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Secretariat of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt is not vested with the jurisdiction to order the transfer of the appeal from South Zonal Bench to West Zonal Bench but would not be averse in the case of inclusion of technical member, as the quorum of the Bangaluru Bench is headed by one other technical member who was not a party in the writ petition before the Honorable Supreme Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the documents. As far as the relief of the petitioner for transfer of the appeal from CESTAT at Bangaluru to Mumbai is concerned, the same cannot be accepted by this Court as this court do not have any jurisdiction to pass such order. At this stage, the learned counsel submits that he would not press this prayer but would make an appropria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
