2020 (12) TMI 1099 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - permission to re-export of goods - Nutrition Supplements - grievance of appellant is that till this date, the appeal has not been taken up for hearing despite repeated request for the same - HELD THAT - As statutory appeal has already been filed by the writ applicant against the final order of confiscation passed by the adjudicating authority, the request to reexport the goods also should be made before the appellate authority. This writ application is disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.5 to take up the appeal preferred by the writ applicant at the earliest and decide the same in accordance with law - Mr. Kapoor, the learned counsel is permitted to prefer an appropriate application before the appellate authority with a prayer to reexport the goods, as prayed for, in this writ application

Issues:
1. Quashing of the order for re-export of goods
2. Permitting re-export without deposit of redemption fine
3. Timely decision on appeal by respondent No.5
4. Seeking uniform guidelines for such cases

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief through a writ application under Article 226 for quashing an order dated 16.10.2020, which directed re-export of goods comprising Nutrition Supplements after imposing fines and penalties. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and violated provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as well as Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India. The High Court acknowledged the appeal filed by the petitioner against the confiscation order and directed the respondent No.5 to promptly decide on the appeal in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that the request for re-export should be made before the appellate authority, i.e., respondent No.5, and disposed of the writ application with a direction for timely consideration of the appeal by the appellate authority.

2. The petitioner also requested permission for re-export of goods without depositing redemption fines and penalties until the appeal before respondent No.5 was pending. The Court recognized the petitioner's concern regarding potential monetary losses if unable to re-export in time. The Court highlighted that the appellate authority should address the request for re-export along with the appeal. It permitted the petitioner's counsel to file an application before respondent No.5 for re-export of goods, emphasizing that the appellate authority should decide on the matter promptly. The Court instructed respondent No.5 to consider the application within eight days of filing and make a decision within fifteen days from the receipt of the court's order.

3. The petitioner raised grievances regarding the delayed hearing of the appeal despite repeated requests. The Court acknowledged the delay and directed respondent No.5 to expedite the appeal process and make a decision promptly. The Court instructed the appellate authority to adhere to the circular dated 16th September 2014, specifically clause 4, and ensure a timely decision within fifteen days from the receipt of the court's order. The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on expediting the appeal process and the request for re-export.

4. Lastly, the petitioner sought uniform guidelines and norms to be followed in such cases. The Court did not provide specific directives on this aspect in the judgment but disposed of the writ application with directions related to the appeal process and the request for re-export. The Court emphasized the importance of timely decisions by the appellate authority and the adherence to relevant circulars in handling such matters.

← Previous Next →