1990 (5) TMI 146 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation and classification of imported goods.
2. Computation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal.
3. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation and Classification of Imported Goods:
The appeal was directed against an order by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, which ordered the confiscation of imported polyester tow under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The goods were to be classified and assessed to duty under Heading 56.01/04 of the CET, as per Notification No. 38/83 dated 1-3-1983, with applicable auxiliary and C.V. duties. A penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also imposed.

2. Computation of the Period of Limitation for Filing an Appeal:
The appellants received the original order on 13-9-1984 and a corrigendum on 17-12-1984. Under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, the appeal should be filed within three months from the date the order is communicated. The appellants argued that the limitation period should start from the date of the corrigendum, citing legal advice and their consultant's affidavit. However, the respondent contended the period should be computed from the date of the original order's receipt, making the appeal time-barred by approximately 78-79 days.

The Tribunal held that the period of limitation is to be computed from the date the original order was communicated (13-9-1984), not from the date of the corrigendum. The corrigendum merely corrected the preamble regarding the appeal forum and did not constitute a substantial amendment to the order.

3. Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellants filed an application for condonation of delay, citing reasons such as the illness of their secretary, Shri R.S. Agarwal, and subsequent legal advice received after the expiry of the limitation period. The Tribunal noted several inconsistencies and lack of evidence, such as the absence of a medical certificate or an affidavit from Shri R.S. Agarwal. The Tribunal emphasized that no event or circumstance arising after the expiry of the limitation period can constitute sufficient cause for delay.

The Tribunal referred to the legal principle that every day's delay must be explained and found that the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay. The Tribunal also highlighted that the advice from Shri A.K. Bhowmik was received after the expiry of the limitation period, which does not justify the delay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay due to insufficient cause and inconsistencies in the appellants' explanation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred without addressing the merits of the case.