9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 528 - HC - CustomsConfiscation - penalty - smuggling of Gold bars - delay of ten days in preferring appeal - HELD THAT - Given the fact that the delay involved was of only ten days, and the matter has not been heard on merits, both before first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), as well as the revisional authority, we are inclined to set aside the order of the revisional authority, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), with a direction to hear the matter on merits. The order of the revisional authority dated 20.07.2021, and that of the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 27.04.2018 are set aside - the matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for a de novo hearing, on merits. Since the petitioner, in a sense, too was responsible, partially, if not wholly, as regards the fate that the matter suffered both before the first appellate authority i.e., the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the revisional authority, he should be, according to us, burdened with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. - Matter restored back.
Issues:
Challenging order under Customs Act, 1962 - Revisional powers - Delay in appeal - Setting aside orders - Burden of costs. Analysis: The writ petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the confiscation of gold bars. The petitioner had filed a revision application against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The key respondents were the Union of India and the Commissioner of Customs, Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi International Airport. The court noted that the revisional authority, represented by the Union of India, would have to defend the order dated 20.07.2021, through respondent no.2. Issue notice was directed to respondent no.2, who accepted notice. The court proceeded with the hearing as the respondent did not wish to file a counter-affidavit. The adjudicating authority had passed an order-in-original in 2016, confiscating the gold bars seized from the petitioner at the airport. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed due to a delay of ten days without a condonation application. The matter was then taken to the revisional authority, who also dismissed the revision application without considering the merits, citing the absence of a condonation of delay application. The court observed that the petitioner should not be solely responsible for the lawyer's failure to file the application and directed a de novo hearing on merits by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The court set aside the orders of the revisional authority and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner to be deposited with the Bar Council of Delhi Indigent & Disabled Lawyers Account within two weeks. Non-compliance would halt proceedings before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for further action, with a written notice to the petitioner for a hearing on merits. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, and pending applications were closed.
|
