2022 (7) TMI 727 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of application filed by petitioner under section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 - the case is that the application stood abated by virtue of sub-section 6 of section 127C of the said Act because the application was filed prior to 30.06.2007 and it did not get disposed before 29.02.2008, the cut-off date - HELD THAT - The petitioner should be permitted to file an application afresh before the Settlement Commission and the Settlement Commission shall consider the same on merits in accordance with law. The provisions cannot be construed as punishing an applicant for the inability or failure of the Settlement Commission to dispose the application within the period specified where such delay in disposal is not attributable to petitioner. Otherwise it would amount to punishing petitioner for the inability of the Settlement Commission to fulfill its statutory obligation, for matters completely beyond his control. The time lost from the date of the impugned order till the application is filed, which Mr. Motwani states will be filed within 4 weeks from today, shall be excluded. Since, the application had already been admitted earlier, we would request the Settlement Commission to endeavour to finally dispose the application in the first hearing itself. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning order passed by Settlement Commission under Customs Act, 1962 - Abatement of application under section 127C due to delay in disposal - Department's challenge creating impediment - Petitioner seeking permission to file application afresh - Interpretation of provisions punishing applicant for Commission's delay - Reference to judgment in Star Television News Ltd. Vs. Union of India - Arbitrariness of cut-off date - Upholding constitutionality of provisions - Excluding time lost from impugned order till filing of application - Requesting Settlement Commission to expedite disposal.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner approached the court to challenge an order by the Settlement Commission, which concluded that the application filed under section 127C of the Customs Act abated due to not being disposed of before the cut-off date. The petitioner argued that it diligently pursued the application, and the department's actions created obstacles in the proceedings. The court found that the petitioner should be allowed to file a fresh application, emphasizing that provisions should not penalize the applicant for delays not attributable to them.

2. The court referred to the judgment in Star Television News Ltd. Vs. Union of India, highlighting that provisions should not punish applicants for delays caused by the Commission. The court noted that the cut-off date was arbitrary and could be read down to avoid being deemed unconstitutional. It emphasized that only applications delayed due to the applicant's fault should abate, and the Settlement Commission should assess if delays were attributable to the applicant.

3. The court directed the exclusion of time lost from the impugned order until the filing of the new application. It requested the Settlement Commission to expedite the disposal of the application in the first hearing. The petition was disposed of, clarifying that no observations were made on the merits of the case. The judgment was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Star Television News Ltd.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the court's reasoning and decisions regarding the abatement of the application, the actions of the department, the interpretation of provisions, and the direction given to the Settlement Commission for expedited disposal.