2009 (12) TMI 554 - HC - Customs

Pre-deposit - statutory appeal directing the petitioner company to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lac towards pre-deposit - Drawing the attention of this Court towards the unamended provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act maximum amount of penalty which could be imposed for violation of the provisions of Section 113 of Act was Rs. 5000/- prior to May 14, 2003 - material date of this case being 11th August, 2000 - Held that - this point was not discussed by the respondent while passing the impugned order with a direction to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pre-deposit - non-consideration, the impugned order is liable to be set aside - direct the respondent to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner company afresh - application stands disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order directing pre-deposit amount in a statutory appeal under Customs Act.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Calcutta High Court, delivered by Justice Debasish Kar Gupta, pertains to a writ application challenging an order requiring a company to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lac towards pre-deposit in a statutory appeal under the Customs Act. The appeal was filed against an order confiscating goods and imposing penalties. The petitioner argued that the penalty amount exceeded the limit permissible under the unamended provisions of the Customs Act applicable at the material date of the case. The Court noted that the impugned order did not address this crucial point raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court set aside the order directing the deposit and quashed it. The respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioner's request for waiving the pre-deposit condition and provide a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The Court emphasized that the impugned order lacked consideration of the legal point raised by the petitioner regarding the maximum penalty amount permissible under the Customs Act. Due to this non-consideration, the Court deemed the order invalid and set it aside. The respondent was instructed to review the petitioner's request afresh and issue a new order in compliance with the law within a specified timeframe.

As a result of the Court's findings, the writ application was disposed of with no order as to costs. The Court also directed the provision of an urgent certified copy of the order to the parties upon application and completion of formalities. The judgment highlights the importance of addressing legal arguments raised by parties in administrative orders to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with statutory provisions.