2008 (11) TMI 263 - HC - Customs

Pre-deposit - petitioners directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 1 crore towards duty and a sum of ₹ 10 lacs towards penalty within eight weeks, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed - Held that - We do not find any merit in the submission of the petitioner that the Tribunal could not direct the appeal to be dismissed for non-deposit under the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act. Section 129E of the Customs Act specifically mandates deposit. If deposit is not made, unless the same is waived, dismissal is the only consequence. The finding of the Tribunal that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, was not perverse. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of order requiring deposit towards duty and penalty by Customs Tribunal, violation of principles of natural justice, dismissal of appeal for non-deposit under Customs Act.

Analysis:
The petitioners, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, imported materials duty-free for manufacturing and export under Customs Act provisions. However, inspection revealed diversion of materials to the market, leading to duty evasion. Adjudicating authority demanded duty payment of Rs. 2.5 crores and imposed penalties. Tribunal, despite lack of mandatory deposit under Section 129E, rejected waiver and upheld the demand. Tribunal found delay in response submission, lack of evidence for manufacturing activity, admission of diversion, and poor quality exports. Allegations of intentional illegal activities were deemed serious, questioning financial status and lack of evidence on export proceeds. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioners were involved in fraudulent activities.

The petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal for non-deposit under Customs Act Section 129E. However, the Court upheld the mandate for deposit and dismissal in case of non-compliance unless waived. The petitioners also challenged the Tribunal's finding on principles of natural justice violation, but the Court disagreed, citing delayed submission despite intimation and sufficient compliance with procedural requirements. The Court emphasized the limited scope of appeal to substantial questions of law, even in a writ petition, and found no grounds for interference, ultimately dismissing the petition.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory provisions, including deposit requirements under the Customs Act. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding violation of natural justice, affirming the Tribunal's findings of fraudulent activities and serious allegations against the petitioners. The judgment highlights the significance of procedural adherence and the limited scope of appeal to substantial legal questions in such matters.