9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 171 - HC - CustomsSeeking return of Bank Guarantee given by petitioner in favour of Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court - time limit of 120 days to submit the statement of facts - Section 130(A)(4) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - The time limit of 120 days prescribed in Section 130(A)(4) of the Customs Act, in our view, should be construed as being directory only and not imperative. The CESTAT (Respondent No.1) is a judicial body and over its actions Respondent No.2 has no control. In those circumstances, to construe the time limit for the submission of the case as mandatory might be to deprive Respondent No.2 of its right to have a question of law considered by the High Court which the Customs Act intends to be so considered. A party should not be deprived of a statutory right for no fault of its own, but for the fault of a public body over which it has no control. Respondent No.1 has no excuse for not filing the statement of case at least with regard to the three files made available, one of which is of petitioner herein - Respondent No.1 (CESTAT through its Registrar) is therefore, directed once again to submit the statement of case. This shall be submitted within six weeks of receiving a copy of this order. Ms. Bharucha states that Respondent No.2 will ensure that this is strictly followed up with CESTAT (Respondent No.1) and Respondent No.2 shall, within two weeks of this order being uploaded, give all details to Respondent No.1. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Dismissal and quashing of the case directed by Respondent No.1 2. Return of Bank Guarantee of Rs.26,86,000 Issue 1: Dismissal and Quashing of the Case Directed by Respondent No.1 The petition sought dismissal and quashing of the case directed to be filed by Respondent No.1 in Customs Application No. 28 of 2001. The petitioner had furnished a Bank Guarantee of Rs.26,86,000 against directions from the Hon'ble Apex Court. The court raised substantial questions of law and directed the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to send the statement of the case to the Bombay High Court expeditiously. However, the statement of the case was not submitted by CESTAT within the prescribed 120 days. The court considered submissions and communications, concluding that Respondent No.2 had not abandoned the application, as papers had been submitted in some matters. The court held that the time limit in the Customs Act should be construed as directory, not mandatory, to protect the statutory right of parties. Legal precedents were cited to support this view, emphasizing that a party should not suffer due to a public body's fault. Respondent No.1 was directed to submit the statement of the case within six weeks, with follow-up actions specified. Issue 2: Return of Bank Guarantee of Rs.26,86,000 Regarding the return of the Bank Guarantee, the court noted the petitioner's severe liquidity crisis and business turmoil. Due to this, the court did not direct the return of the Bank Guarantee at that time. However, it allowed the petitioner to reapply for its return and substitution with satisfactory security if the Customs Application was not disposed of within one year after receiving the statement of facts from CESTAT. The court reserved the right to consider such an application on its merits at that future time. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs. This detailed judgment from the Bombay High Court addressed the issues of dismissing the case directed by Respondent No.1 and the return of the Bank Guarantee, providing a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles involved and the actions to be taken by the parties involved.
|
