2016 (9) TMI 411 - AT - Customs

Unconditional release of the attached properties restoration of appeals pre-deposit for hearing of appeal - Held that - the appeal in respect of which amount of pre-deposit has been deposited by the appellant, the restoration has been granted. For the Order dated 11.8.2014 passed by the Hon ble High Court in a challenge to the said common order dated 23.7.2013 against the same applicants, inclination shown towards restoration of those remaining appeals for hearing them on merits in respect of which the amounts directed vide earlier Order dated 3.1.2007 are already paid, but subject to payment of total cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- within one week from receipt of this Order. Upon reporting compliance of the same on expiry of one week, these appeals bearing nos. C/790/06, C/794/06, C/791/06, C/793/06, C/795/06 and C/787/06 shall stand restored and recovery under the said Orders-in-original qua the concerned appellants would remain stayed till final disposal of the appeals. In respect of the remaining applications for restoration of appeals, where the applicants have only shown their willingness to make the payment, but have not yet deposited the amounts directed vide earlier Order dated 3.1.2007, appeals are not restored. Liberty granted to them to apply for restoration only after making payment of the amount directed to be deposited under Order dated 3.1.2007.These remaining applications concerning Appeal nos. C/784/06, C/788/06, C/786/06 and C/789/06 are thus dismissed with this liberty. Since all the appeals are restored subject to above payment of cost, immediately upon producing proof of payment of cost as above, the attachment of the properties would be lifted within one week of producing the proof of payment of cost. All applications disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-payment of pre-deposit and subsequent dismissal of appeals.
2. Attachment of properties due to non-payment.
3. Applications for restoration of appeals.
4. Compliance with High Court orders and pre-deposit payments.
5. Lifting of property attachment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-payment of Pre-deposit and Subsequent Dismissal of Appeals:
The Tribunal directed pre-deposit amounts to be paid by five noticees as a condition for hearing the appeals on merit. Due to non-payment, the appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal on 10.5.2007. The Customs Authorities subsequently attached certain properties owned by Mrs. Parimala Singh or her proprietorship firm.

2. Attachment of Properties Due to Non-payment:
On 9.7.2010, the Customs Authorities attached movable and immovable properties owned by Mrs. Parimala Singh or her firm due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit orders. Despite the attachment, the noticees did not make any pre-deposit or agree to do so for six years.

3. Applications for Restoration of Appeals:
The noticees filed applications for restoration of their appeals, citing financial hardship and property attachment. The Tribunal dismissed these applications on 23.7.2013. The Competent Authority under SAFEMA later released certain attached properties on 29.6.2012.

4. Compliance with High Court Orders and Pre-deposit Payments:
The Bombay High Court, in an order dated 11.8.2014, permitted restoration of appeals against the Order-in-Original dated 29.3.2006, conditional on compliance with the Tribunal's pre-deposit order and payment of costs. The noticees complied, depositing ?70,00,000/- and ?50,000/- in costs, leading to the restoration of these appeals.

Subsequently, the noticees filed further applications for restoration of appeals against the Orders-in-Original dated 31.3.2006 and 3.4.2006, showing willingness to make pre-deposits. They deposited ?9,00,000/- for the Order-in-Original dated 3.4.2006 and ?20,00,000/- for the Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2006.

5. Lifting of Property Attachment:
The Departmental Representative opposed the applications, arguing that allowing them would reward negligence. However, the Tribunal, considering the High Court's order and in the interest of justice, restored the appeals where pre-deposits were made, subject to additional costs of ?1,00,000/-. Upon compliance, the attachment of Mrs. Parimala Singh's properties would be lifted, allowing her to sell the properties to make further payments.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal restored the appeals for which pre-deposits were made, subject to additional costs, and allowed the lifting of property attachments upon proof of payment. Appeals where pre-deposits were not made were dismissed but granted liberty to apply for restoration upon payment. The applications were disposed of accordingly.