2020 (7) TMI 704 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 110 days in filing appeal - sufficient cause present for delay or not - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the period to file the impugned appeal stands expired on 11 May 2019. Now coming to the reason quoted as sufficient cause for the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal, we observe that the only reason quoted is pendency of writ-petition No. 2826/2019 being filed before Hon ble High Court of Delhi. Apparently and admittedly the said writ-petition was filed on 10 May 2019 that is just one day prior the date of expiry of period of limitation available to the present applicant to file the impugned appeal. Otherwise also, we observe that the writ-petition was filed by one Shri Stanley Fernandes. The said petitioner though was consignor but apparently he is not appellant nor as is apparently the co-noticee of the appellant in the impugned show cause notice No. 3007 dated 07 February 2018. Also there is no order been passed against him as is apparent from the impugned order dated 30 January 2019. For this reason also the pendency of said writ-petition does not seem to extend any benefit to the present applicant who is none but the importer and the proposed allegation of mis-declaration on his part that too to the extent of importing 43020 pieces of memory card serve 4 GB and 8 GB quantity under the garb of three battery UPS, is not available to him. COD application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal based on sufficient cause.

Analysis:
The appellant sought condonation of a 110-day delay in filing an appeal, citing financial burden caused by a misfeasance issue with an exporter. The appellant explained that pursuing compensation from the exporter led to the delay. The Departmental Representative argued that the reason provided was insufficient, as the writ petition mentioned was not directly related to the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the order being challenged was announced on 30 January 2019, received by the appellant on 10 February 2019, and the appeal period expired on 11 May 2019. The Tribunal found the reason for delay, related to a writ petition filed by a different party, inadequate to justify the delay. Additionally, the writ petitioner was not the appellant or co-noticee in the case, and no order was passed against them. The Tribunal concluded that the reason provided did not constitute a sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant did not explore other options, such as paying a redemption fine, provided in the order under challenge. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of providing a valid and direct reason for seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. It highlights that reasons unrelated to the appellant's circumstances may not be considered sufficient cause. Additionally, it underscores the need for appellants to explore all available options provided in the original order before seeking condonation of delay.