2017 (11) TMI 362 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - Redemption Fine in lieu of confiscation of Gold imported - Held that - In view of an effective alternate remedy being available to the petitioner-Bank, the present petition is held to be not maintainable. However, since the limitation in filing such an appeal might have expired by now, as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank, the petitioner-Bank is permitted to file an appeal even now i.e., within the period of 30 days from today.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of Redemption Fine under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Maintainability of the present petition due to the availability of an alternate remedy.
3. Permission for the petitioner to file an appeal beyond the limitation period.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a petition filed by M/s.Induslnd Bank Limited challenging the imposition of a Redemption Fine of ?1 Crore under the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order confirmed the demand of short paid duty and applicable interest on the value of imported goods, holding the goods liable for confiscation. The petitioner contested the imposition of the Redemption Fine specifically. The court noted the availability of an appeal mechanism before the Higher Authority Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 for such disputes. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal within 30 days to address the issue effectively.

2. The court considered the maintainability of the present petition in light of the alternative remedy available through the appellate process. Despite the petitioner's payment of the differential Customs Duty, the challenge against the Redemption Fine was deemed not maintainable due to the existence of a statutory appeal route. However, recognizing the possibility of the limitation period for filing an appeal having expired, the court granted permission for the petitioner to file an appeal beyond the prescribed time frame. This decision aimed to ensure the petitioner's access to justice and the opportunity to address the issue through the appropriate appellate channel.

3. In the final disposition, the court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from the judgment date, with the assurance that the Appellate Authority-Commissioner (Appeals) would entertain the appeal without raising objections on the question of limitation. The petitioner was instructed to fulfill all other conditions necessary for maintaining the appeal. The petition was consequently disposed of, with no costs imposed on either party. This comprehensive analysis highlights the court's approach to balancing the principles of procedural compliance and substantive justice in addressing the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the imposition of the Redemption Fine under the Customs Act, 1962.