2011 (11) TMI 747 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance of Section 153 of the Customs Act.
2. Limitation period for filing an appeal.
3. Allegations against the appellant regarding import discrepancies.
4. Discretion of the Tribunal to condone delay in filing the appeal.

Compliance of Section 153 of the Customs Act:
The appellant argued non-compliance of Section 153 of the Act, stating the order by the Commissioner was served on them on 14th December, 2009, making the appeal within limitation. However, the Tribunal found that the original assessment order file was not traceable. The appellant participated in the proceedings, and it was deemed unlikely that they were unaware of the order for 10 years. The Tribunal noted attempts made by the Revenue to recover penalties post the order in 1999, indicating the appellant's knowledge of the situation. Correspondence was sent to the correct address, and recovery steps were taken, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Limitation period for filing an appeal:
The appeal was against an order dated 14th October, 1999, filed over 10 years later. The Tribunal justified its decision not to condone the delay, citing the appellant's awareness of the order and the Revenue's efforts to recover penalties. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had delayed approaching the tribunal until faced with harsh recovery measures, indicating a lack of diligence.

Allegations against the appellant regarding import discrepancies:
The appellant was implicated in a case where a consignment of computer parts was found to contain watch movements instead of the declared items. The appellant was linked to the non-existent importer and was accused of involvement in the import discrepancy. This formed the basis of the order by the Commissioner, leading to the subsequent appeal.

Discretion of the Tribunal to condone delay in filing the appeal:
The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances and findings, determined that no substantial legal question arose for consideration in the appeal. The Tribunal upheld its decision to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's delay in seeking redress and the lack of grounds for condoning the 10-year delay in filing the appeal.