2020 (12) TMI 618 - HC - Customs

Extension of time for passing final adjudication order by the adjudicating authority - HELD THAT - After considering the fact that final adjudication order has in fact been passed on 23rd November, 2020, no further order is called for save and except that the additional time taken in passing the order-in-original following adjudication is accepted and condoned. Interim application is disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
Extension of time for passing final adjudication order by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application seeking an extension of time for passing the final adjudication order by the adjudicating authority. The related petition was disposed of by the Court along with two other writ petitions. The Court granted liberty to file an appeal before the CESTAT under the Customs Act against a specific order. It directed the adjudicating authority to initiate the adjudication process within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order and conclude it following due procedure and principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner was allowed to file an application for the sale of seized goods, with a decision to be made within two weeks. The Court emphasized that all contentions were kept open, and no opinion on merit was expressed.

Regarding the completion of the adjudication process within four weeks, it was noted during the hearing that the adjudication order was passed slightly beyond the specified period. The applicant's counsel cited various reasons for the delay and requested condonation of the same. After hearing both parties, the Court acknowledged that the final adjudication order had indeed been passed within an acceptable timeframe, albeit slightly delayed. Consequently, the additional time taken in passing the order following adjudication was accepted and condoned, leading to the disposal of the interim application.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issue of extending the time for passing the final adjudication order by the adjudicating authority. It highlights the Court's directions regarding the adjudication process, the timeline for filing appeals, and the need for adherence to procedural requirements and principles of natural justice. The Court's decision to accept and condone the slight delay in passing the adjudication order signifies a pragmatic approach to the circumstances presented during the proceedings.