2024 (3) TMI 419 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - Recovery of the Amounts during the Pendency of Appeal - Circular No. 984/8/2014-CX - encashment of the Bank Guarantee - HELD THAT - In view of the circular, the position on recovery is clear. The authorities are expected to act accordingly and we see no reason as to why the circular would not be followed, subject to the petitioner following the conditions stipulated therein. In view of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal and as the petitioner is also ready to approach the appellate authority by complying with the statutory conditions within the period of limitation of 60 days, the writ petition is being disposed of finally, providing that the petitioner shall file the statutory appeal by complying the statutory pre-deposit condition, within the limitation period of 60 days from the date of the order impugned in this petition, dated 30.12.2023 and thereupon he may approach the competent authority with proof of deposit along with copy of memo of appeal, as per the circular against the recovery for rest of the amount. Since the period of limitation of 60 days for filing appeal has yet not expired, till the period of limitation of 60 days is over, any coercive action pursuant to clause (4) in the impugned order will not be taken against the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of finally in the aforesaid terms - As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, concerning encashment of Bank Guarantee and compliance with statutory provisions for appeal within the limitation period.

Issue 1: Challenge to the order dated 30.12.2023:
The petitioner contested the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, arguing that the order is appealable under the Customs Act. The petitioner expressed readiness to file the appeal by depositing the required percentage as per statutory provisions. Concern arose due to the possibility of the Bank Guarantee being encashed before the appeal could be filed, despite the appeal period not expiring.

Issue 2: Compliance with Circular No. 984/8/2014-CX:
The Senior Counsel referred to Circular No. 984/8/2014-CX and highlighted the provision stating that no coercive measures for recovery shall be taken during the pendency of appeal if the stipulated deposit percentage is paid and proof is submitted along with the appeal memo. The circular emphasizes that recovery action can only be initiated post the disposal of the case by the Commissioner or Tribunal in favor of the Department.

Judgment Summary:
The High Court acknowledged that the order in question is appealable and that the appeal period had not expired. Referring to Circular No. 984/8/2014-CX, it was noted that if the statutory appeal is filed within the limitation period and the required deposit is made, no coercive measures for recovery would be taken. The Court directed the petitioner to file the statutory appeal within 60 days, complying with the pre-deposit condition, to avoid coercive actions. Until the appeal period lapses, no coercive action pursuant to the impugned order would be taken against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.