1987 (8) TMI 270 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of appeal rejected for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act.
2. Applicability of Rules 20 and 41 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
3. Finality of Tribunal's order under Section 129B(4) of the Customs Act.
4. Tribunal's power to review its own orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Restoration of Appeal Rejected for Non-Compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act:
The applicant sought restoration of an appeal initially rejected for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act, which mandates pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The applicant argued financial incapacity to deposit the required Rs. 1 lakh. Post-rejection, the applicant approached the Gujarat High Court, which ordered the release of the confiscated vessel upon payment of the redemption fine. The applicant later expressed willingness to deposit the Rs. 1 lakh.

2. Applicability of Rules 20 and 41 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982:
The applicant's counsel cited Rules 20 and 41 to justify the restoration of the appeal. Rule 20 pertains to restoration of appeals dismissed for default due to non-appearance, which was not applicable here as the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129E. Rule 41, which allows the Tribunal to make necessary orders to secure justice, was also deemed inapplicable by one member, as it does not explicitly cover restoration of appeals dismissed for non-deposit.

3. Finality of Tribunal's Order Under Section 129B(4) of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal's order rejecting the appeal for non-compliance with Section 129E was argued to be final under Section 129B(4). This section states that Tribunal's orders are final unless provisions under Sections 130 or 130E apply, which were not relevant here. Hence, the argument was that there were no legal provisions enabling the Tribunal to restore the appeal.

4. Tribunal's Power to Review Its Own Orders:
The majority opinion held that restoring the appeal would amount to reviewing the Tribunal's own final order, which is not permissible. One member dissented, arguing that restoring the appeal would not constitute a review but would serve the interests of justice, especially since the applicant was now willing to make the required deposit. This member emphasized that judicial bodies should have the flexibility to rectify injustices, even if not explicitly provided for in the rules.

Separate Judgments:

Majority Opinion:
The majority concluded that the Tribunal's order rejecting the appeal for non-deposit was final and could not be reviewed or restored. They emphasized that the Tribunal lacks the power to review its final orders, and restoring the appeal would contravene this principle.

Minority Opinion:
The dissenting member argued that the Tribunal should have the discretion to restore the appeal to prevent injustice, particularly since the applicant was now ready to comply with the deposit requirement. This member contended that such restoration would not amount to a review but would further the ends of justice.

Final Order:
In light of the majority view, the application for restoration of the appeal was rejected. The final order was passed on 26th August 1987, affirming the rejection of the application for restoration.