2017 (11) TMI 622 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay of 248 days in filing appeal - Whether the tribunal was justified and correct in law in rejecting application and refusing to condone delay of 248 days? - Held that - the appellant has been saddled with a fairly substantial demand. The matter does require consideration. The appellant had, as per the respondents as noticed above, waived his right to show cause notice and hence he did not have copy of the entire RUDs. It is per se evident that there would have been difficulty in filing of an appeal without relevant documents. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant would be ready and willing to pay costs, but the appeal should be heard and disposed of on merits - delay condoned, subject to payment of costs of ₹ 35000/- to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeal under Customs Act, 1962; Justification of rejecting application for condonation of delay of 248 days.

Analysis:
The appellant, a sole proprietor, filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act against the Tribunal's order rejecting his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The primary issue for consideration was whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 248 days. The case involved the import of glass sets and glass chatons, where discrepancies in imports and valuation were alleged, leading to the seizure of the consignment and imposition of customs duty and penalties. The appellant claimed to have received the order-in-original on 18th January, 2016, and filed the appeal on 22nd December, 2016, along with a condonation of delay application citing failure of respondents to issue show cause notice and furnish relevant documents.

The Tribunal, in its order dated 15th March, 2017, noted the contentions of both parties. It refused to condone the delay, citing the appellant's application for furnishing relevant documents just a few days before filing the appeal. The respondents argued that the appellant had waived his right to a show cause notice, hence justifying the non-furnishing of all relevant documents. The appellant, on the other hand, claimed ignorance of his rights initially and later realized the need to file an appeal to contest the findings. The appellant agreed to pay costs but requested the appeal to be heard on merits.

After considering the respective contentions, the Court accepted the appellant's plea and decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the appellant paying costs of ?35,000 to the respondents within four weeks. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal to fix a date for the hearing. The appeal was disposed of with these terms, leaving the final decision to be made by the Tribunal in accordance with the law.