2020 (12) TMI 763 - HC - Customs

Permission for withdrawal of petition - petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail statutory remedy against Ext.P2 order - compliance with the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit as envisaged under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - This writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the statutory remedy, if any, available to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 order.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of Ext.P2 order dated 28.08.2019
2. Directing the 3rd respondent to consider the appeal afresh
3. Directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P3 letter and issue the challan
4. Application for waiver of pre-deposit
5. Rejection of petitioner's appeal by Ext.P2 order dated 28.8.2019
6. Request for issuance of chalan in an already rejected appeal
7. Applicability of Ext.P5 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay
8. Duty of the 4th respondent regarding issuance of chalan
9. Timeliness of making pre-deposit as per Section 129E(i) of the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P2 order dated 28.08.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and requested a fresh consideration of the appeal with an opportunity for a hearing. Additionally, the petitioner sought an order directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P3 letter and issue the challan for mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents opposed the reliefs, stating that the petitioner attended a personal hearing without pre-deposit, leading to the rejection of the appeal by Ext.P2 order. The respondents highlighted the belated request for chalan issuance and referenced the timeliness requirement for pre-deposit as per Section 129E(i). They argued that the petitioner's willingness to make pre-deposit after five months from Ext.P2 order was untimely, citing the inapplicability of a Bombay High Court judgment (Ext.P5) to the case.

During the consideration of the writ petition, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition without prejudice to the petitioner's right to avail statutory remedies against Ext.P2 order. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, preserving the petitioner's option to pursue any available statutory remedy against the order. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions regarding the timeliness of appeals and mandatory pre-deposit under the Customs Act, 1962.