2017 (1) TMI 1018 - HC - Customs

Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed by an unreasoned order, on the premise that writ petitions filed by other parties, challenging the order against which the petitioner was aggrieved as an appellant, were pending - It was urged that existence of an alternative remedy is a ground for refusal for exercising writ jurisdiction; pendency of a writ petition cannot be ever a ground to deny appellate remedy, which is created specifically by the statute and exists as of right. Held that - Parliamentary intent in the creation of an appellate forum in respect of findings by the designated authority was to provide meaningful redress by a competent appellate body. The order impugned is not only cryptic but mistaken in its assumption that the pending writ petitions (of others) can provide adequate redress to the petitioner-an entirely erroneous assumption, because those writ petitions are merely pending and depend upon exercise of discretion. The availability of an appellate remedy in this case, is conferment of a right to approach the higher forum for correction, on facts and law, whereas exercise of judicial review is within a restricted canvas. The CESTAT has in essence, treated an appellate remedy (otherwise a compulsive jurisdiction) to be alternative and discretionary, robbing it of substantial content. A direction is issued to the CESTAT whose President shall constitute a Bench as expediently as possible and issue notice of hearing to the parties within six weeks - appeal restored - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the dismissal of appeal by CESTAT based on pending writ petitions challenging the same order.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the final order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, arguing that the appeal was dismissed unreasonably due to pending writ petitions by other parties. The investigations following an anti-dumping complaint led to findings and notifications resulting in writ petitions challenging the findings and antidumping duty levy. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the findings and notification, filed an appeal before CESTAT. However, CESTAT dismissed the appeal citing pending writ petitions by other parties challenging the same order. The petitioner contended that the existence of an alternative remedy should not deny the right to an appellate remedy, which is created specifically by statute. The respondents acknowledged the factual nature of the controversy and emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory right that should not be dependent on the discretion of the tribunal.

The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for decisions made by judicial or quasi-judicial authorities to ensure fairness and transparency in the decision-making process. The court cited Supreme Court observations highlighting the significance of recording reasons in administrative decisions that affect individuals prejudicially. The court stressed that reasons for decisions serve the broader principle that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done. Transparency in decision-making processes makes judges and decision-makers less prone to errors and subject to broader scrutiny. The court underscored that reasons for decisions must be cogent, clear, and succinct to uphold the principles of natural justice and judicial accountability.

The court reiterated that the provision empowering CESTAT to act as an appellate forum is an appeal of right under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. The parliamentary intent behind creating an appellate forum was to provide meaningful redress by a competent appellate body. The court criticized the cryptic and mistaken assumption by CESTAT that pending writ petitions could adequately redress the petitioner's grievances. The court clarified that an appellate remedy is a right to approach a higher forum for correction on facts and law, distinct from the discretionary nature of judicial review. Consequently, the court directed CESTAT to constitute a Bench promptly, provide notice to the parties within six weeks, complete the hearing expeditiously, and issue final orders within three months of the conclusion of the hearing. The court allowed the writ petition and accompanying applications in the specified terms.