2021 (8) TMI 251 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - rejection on the ground of non-fulfilment with mandatory requirement of pre-deposit - customs duty already paid not adjusted by the petitioners towards pre-deposit to be made - Section 129E of Customs Act - HELD THAT - When the appellate authority made a finding that the records were carefully gone through and the facts were considered and the petitioners have not established that they are entitled for any adjustment of paid customs duty towards pre-deposit for entertaining an appeal, there is no reason to entertain a writ petition and if at all there is any records available with the petitioners, they are at liberty to approach the CESTAT under Section 129A(1) of the Act. The CESTAT is empowered to call for the entire files, verify the records and form an opinion whether the petitioners are entitled for any such adjustment or not, or there is any error in respect of the findings made by the authority or not. However, such an elaborate adjudication cannot be done by the High Court in writ proceedings at this stage. The petitioners on one hand claim that they have paid ₹ 11.36 Lakhs towards duty. The Orders-in-Appeal, which are impugned, state that there is no clarity in respect of the said payment made by the petitioners. The adjudication of facts is required with reference to the documents in original, which are to be scrutinised. Thus, the petitioners are at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 129A(1) before the CESTAT for the purpose of redressal of their grievances - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Orders-in-Appeal for quashing - Compliance with pre-deposit requirements under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with Pre-Deposit Requirements under Section 129E:
The petitioners sought to quash the Orders-in-Appeal dated 20.05.2021 for non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argued that they had already paid a sum of ?11.36 Lakhs as customs duty, which should have been adjusted towards the pre-deposit as per Section 129E. However, the appeals were rejected on the grounds that the petitioners did not fulfill the condition of pre-depositing 10% of the duty demanded. The impugned order highlighted discrepancies in the claims made by the petitioners regarding the duty deposit. It was found that the petitioners had only paid a portion of the duty demanded, and no bank guarantee was executed as required. The appellate authority concluded that there was no clarity regarding the alleged payment of ?11.36 Lakhs by the petitioners.

Issue 2: Judicial Review and Exhaustion of Remedies:
The High Court emphasized that the appellate tribunal, CESTAT, is the competent authority to adjudicate on disputed issues raised by the petitioners in their writ petitions. The Court noted that the petitioners had not exhausted the remedy available under the Act by approaching the CESTAT for redressal of their grievances. The Court clarified that detailed adjudication of facts based on original documents was necessary, which could be done by the CESTAT. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to pursue their remedies by filing an appeal before the CESTAT in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act and Rules.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions due to the petitioners' failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirements under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies and directed the petitioners to approach the CESTAT for resolution of their grievances. The judgment underscores the significance of following legal procedures and seeking redressal through the appropriate appellate tribunal.