2020 (2) TMI 1263 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 764 days in filing the appeal - imposition of penalty for violation of Regulation 11(a) and (n) of CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT - It is settled position of law that merely because a decision which is in favour come to the notice, it cannot be a ground to seek condonation of delay. The appellant has failed to promptly avail the appeal remedy. Though law of limitation is not meant to destroy the right of parties, it cannot favour those who are sleeping. In the present case, the appellant has deliberately opted not to file appeal initially. Thereafter, this appeal is filed only on the advice given that the penalty can be set aside - there is no evidence to show that the livelihood of appellant is affected or his intention to expand business is interrupted. The appellant has not been able to put forward sufficient cause to condone the delay. Further, the delay is more than two years - the application for condonation of delay is without merits - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, violation of Regulation 11(a) and (n) of CBLR, 2013, imposition of penalty, condonation of delay, impact on business expansion, legal precedents, sufficiency of cause for delay, livelihood impact.

Analysis:
The appellant sought condonation of a 764-day delay in filing an appeal against a penalty imposed for violating Regulation 11(a) and (n) of CBLR, 2013. Initially, the appellant chose not to appeal, opting to pay the penalty. Later, desiring to expand business to other ports, the appellant feared rejection of a no objection certificate due to the penalty. The appellant argued that as the inquiry report favored them, the penalty was unjust. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended that the delay should be condoned, emphasizing the absence of dilatory tactics. The appellant's counsel highlighted the Supreme Court's stance on plausible explanations for delay, urging a liberal view for condonation.

The respondent opposed the condonation, asserting the appellant's failure to appeal within the statutory period. The respondent argued that no sufficient cause was established for the delay, distinguishing the case from legal precedents cited by the appellant. Emphasizing the lack of deliberate delay tactics, the respondent contended that the appellant's decision not to appeal initially precluded claims of delay. The respondent disputed the appellant's claim of business impact due to the penalty, noting the absence of evidence regarding rejected requests for business expansion.

Upon hearing both parties, the judge noted the appellant's lengthy delay and the penalty imposed for Regulation violations. The judge found the appellant's fear of business hindrance unsubstantiated, as no evidence of rejected requests for business expansion was presented. The judge dismissed the appellant's reliance on legal precedents favoring customs brokers, emphasizing that delay condonation cannot be sought solely based on favorable decisions. Concluding that the appellant failed to present sufficient cause for the delay, and considering the delay's significant duration, the judge dismissed the condonation application and consequently the appeal itself.

In the final decision, the judge ruled that the appellant's failure to promptly avail the appeal remedy, coupled with the absence of substantial evidence supporting the delay, warranted the dismissal of the condonation application and the appeal. The judge highlighted that the appellant's deliberate choice not to appeal initially, only doing so later based on legal advice, did not justify condoning the delay. Ultimately, the judge found the application for condonation of delay lacking in merit and dismissed it, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.