2017 (3) TMI 281 - HC - Customs

Natural justice - non-availing of the statutory right to prefer an appeal from two orders - Held that - The petitioner was well aware of both the proceedings at the adjudication stage. It chose to arrange its affairs in a particular way. The order dated August 31, 2005 passed by DGFT has attained finality. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal thereform despite having complete knowledge of such proceeding. In fact the petitioner has contemporaneous knowledge of such order - The petitioner became aware that a demand was raised by DGFT consequent upon an adjudication in the proceeding. The petitioner not to take any steps even in spite of such knowledge - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-service of original order for appeal
2. Errors apparent on the face of the record
3. Delay in filing the writ petition
4. Non-appearance in adjudication proceedings
5. Finality of adjudication orders

Issue 1: Non-service of original order for appeal
The petitioner contested the non-service of the original order dated August 31, 2005, by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), which was necessary for initiating an appeal. The petitioner argued that without receiving the original order, the time period for appealing had not commenced. The DGFT, however, claimed that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and was served the order by speed post. The court noted the lack of filed affidavits by the respondents and considered the petitioner's request for the original order to be served to initiate the appeal process.

Issue 2: Errors apparent on the face of the record
The petitioner alleged errors on the face of the record and emphasized the importance of the original order being served to commence the appeal process. The court reviewed the contentions of both parties and examined the communication provided by the DGFT as evidence of the petitioner's awareness of the proceedings. The court considered the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of filed affidavits by the respondents and the necessity of the original order for appealing.

Issue 3: Delay in filing the writ petition
The court addressed the delay in filing the writ petition, noting the petitioner's explanation of the ill health of the director responsible for the matter. However, the court found no supporting documents annexed to the petition to establish the claimed ill health. The court emphasized that the order dated August 31, 2005, passed by the DGFT had attained finality, and the petitioner did not appeal despite being aware of the proceedings and the demand raised by the DGFT.

Issue 4: Non-appearance in adjudication proceedings
Regarding the Custom Authorities' order dated August 25, 2009, the petitioner was given three opportunities for a personal hearing but did not appear. The court highlighted that the petitioner was well aware of the adjudication proceedings but chose not to appeal the order. The lack of explanation in the writ petition for not appealing from the Custom Authorities' order was noted by the court.

Issue 5: Finality of adjudication orders
The court concluded that since the adjudication orders had attained finality and the petitioner did not prefer any appeals despite being aware of the proceedings, directing the Authorities to consider the petitioner's representation would serve no purpose. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the petitioner's claims. W.P. No. 927 of 2010 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the court's considerations and conclusions on each matter.