TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich goods were confiscated. The present applications of Shri Suketu J Mody for reconsideration of the findings on merit appears to be a ploy to substitute for lack of challenge to the offence leading to confiscation. The technical issue raised by the applicant herein for rectification of mistake pertaining to the finding and jurisdiction are tantamount to seeking review of the order which is the prerogative of the appellate courts. Application dismissed. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2008, 357 OF 2008 & 361 OF 2008 - M/ 85273-85275 /2022 - Dated:- 21-4-2022 - MR S K MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the appellant Shri Manoj Das, Assistant Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he preamble of the order of the Tribunal. On perusal of the records we find that appeal no. C/353/2008, no. C/357/2008 and no. C/361/2008 are absent therein. Accordingly, we direct that APPEAL NO: C/357/2008 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 156/2007/CAC/CC/KS dated 30/11/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai.] Suketu J Mody Appellant Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) ACC, Mumbai Respondent APPEAL NO: C/357/2008 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 155/2007/CAC/CC/KS dated 30/11/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai.] Suketu J Mody Appellant Versus Commissioner of Customs (Impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscation. 7. The technical issue raised by the applicant herein for rectification of mistake pertaining to the finding and jurisdiction are tantamount to seeking review of the order which is the prerogative of the appellate courts. 8. The applications seek to rely upon the deployment of the expression presumptive heir in paragraph no. 47 of the said order as sufficing to set aside the penalty for being incorrect; this is a passing observation and mere phrasing which is not the sole ground on which the findings against him in the impugned order were upheld. . 9. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the present applications, which are dismissed except to the extent of enumeration of the appeals as directed supra. (Order pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
