CESTAT Rebukes Appellant for using Language Casting Aspersions on Customs Commissioner in Grounds of Appeal [Read Order]

The appellant, Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd., was the holder of CB License issued by Chennai Customs. They filed an appeal before the CESTAT challenging the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013.

While examining the appeal, the tribunal noted that the appeal memorandum contained language casting aspersions on the Commissioner and showing disrespect towards him.

Tax Planning For NRIs - CLCK HERE

Some portions of the grounds of the appeal were reproduced for illustration wherein, “The order of the learned lower adjudicating authority is unjust, unfair, unreasonable, illogical, unfounded, biased, contrary to law and is passed in gross violation to the principles of natural justice and is also couched by gross bias and judicial indiscipline and therefore requires to be vacated in limini holding the same to be totally devoid of any merits, baseless and therefore not sustainable in law.”

Another part stated “The learned lower adjudicating authority, apart from committing gross violation of the principles of natural justice... had proceeded to impose the penalty on the Custom Broker for the sole reason that which alone his order merits to be set aside.”

Further, the memorandum stated the order was “totally predetermined and blatantly biased” and reflected “non-application of mind.”

The appellant did not provide any explanation or withdraw such language. The respondent also did not object the same. However, the tribunal took note of it suo motu, observing that it had encountered similar conduct by the appellant earlier.

It referred to its own Final Order No. 40626/2025 dated 19.6.2025 in the same appellant’s case, stating “Though it is true that advocates prepare the pleadings and make their submissions before the quasi-authorities/ court on instructions given by their clients, however they should, as an officer of the court, use their legal acumen to assist the authorities in the administration of justice fairly and in a cordial manner by maintaining decorum of language, while conducting legal proceedings on their clients behalf. While they are free to point out portions of the order under challenge, which are felt to be not legal or proper, they should desist from casting aspersions on the decision of quasi-judicial/ judicial authorities.”

The tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ujjam Bai vs. State of U.P. (1962), where the Court held that even if an appellant feels that an authority has erred in its decision, the same cannot be an excuse to show disrespect to that authority.

The tribunal further observed that it fervently hopes not to find such disrespectful language being used in future appeals. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.

Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here

The appellant was represented by N. Viswanathan, and the Department was represented by Anoop Singh.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates