2025 (4) TMI 710 - HC - Customs

Waiver of the statutory pre-deposit amount required under Section 129E of the Customs Act 1962 - petitioner s financial incapacity to pay the pre-deposit amount - Penalty u/s 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - Section 129E of the Customs Act 1962 makes it clear that any statutory appeal filed under Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962 shall not be entertained unless the pre-deposit amount stipulated under Section 129- E of the Customs Act 1962 is made by the party preferring the statutory appeal. The section says shall which means the payment of pre-deposit amount is mandatory. The petitioner being a regular importer it can be inferred that he would have certainly known about the statutory provisions of the Customs Act 1962 which makes it mandatory for the petitioner to pay the pre-deposit amount as provided under Section 129-E of the Customs Act 1962. Having not sought for waiver when the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court was disposed of and based on the same the petitioner had also preferred the statutory appeal the question of entertaining this writ petition wherein the petitioner is re-agitating the very same contentions that were raised by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition while he had challenged the very same impugned order in original dated 25.03.2023 does not deserve any merit. Conclusion - Therefore not only on the ground that the payment of pre-deposit amount for preferring the statutory appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962 is mandatory this Court has also given due consideration to the fact that the petitioner is re-agitating the issue once again as the very same contentions that have been raised in this writ petition were also raised in the earlier writ petition filed by the very same petitioner wherein this Court had disposed of the said writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner by directing the petitioner to exercise the statutory appellate remedy available under the Customs Act 1962. This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition - Petition dismissed.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this case are:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a waiver of the statutory pre-deposit amount required under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, for filing an appeal against the order in original dated 25.03.2023.
Whether the petitioner's financial incapacity to pay the pre-deposit amount can be a valid ground for waiver, considering the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in a similar case.
Whether the writ petition challenging the same order in original is maintainable after the petitioner was directed to exercise the statutory appellate remedy.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Waiver of Statutory Pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that any appeal filed under Section 128 shall not be entertained unless the appellant makes a pre-deposit of the stipulated amount. The section uses the term 'shall,' indicating the mandatory nature of this requirement.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit requirement, noting that the statutory language leaves no room for discretion unless specifically provided for under the law.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner, a regular importer and Managing Director of a company, was expected to be aware of the statutory requirements, including the pre-deposit condition for appeals.
Application of Law to Facts: Given the petitioner's position and familiarity with the Customs Act, the Court inferred that the petitioner should have known about the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner relied on a Delhi High Court judgment where waiver was granted due to the petitioners' financial incapacity. However, the Court distinguished the current case, noting that the petitioner is not similarly situated as the Delhi case petitioners, who were poor daily wage earners.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement, as the statutory language is clear and the petitioner's circumstances do not justify deviation from the norm.

2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner had previously filed writ petitions challenging the same order, which were disposed of with directions to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner is re-agitating the same issues previously addressed, which does not merit reconsideration.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner did not seek a waiver of the pre-deposit during the earlier writ proceedings and subsequently filed an appeal without making the pre-deposit.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the petitioner, having been directed to pursue the statutory appeal, cannot maintain another writ petition challenging the same order without new grounds.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's financial incapacity argument was considered but found insufficient to warrant a different outcome.
Conclusions: The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner is essentially seeking to re-litigate issues already decided.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, makes it clear that any statutory appeal filed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, shall not be entertained unless the pre-deposit amount stipulated under Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962 is made by the party preferring the statutory appeal."
Core Principles Established: The mandatory nature of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E is reaffirmed, and financial incapacity alone is not sufficient to waive this requirement unless specific legal provisions allow for such a waiver.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The writ petition is dismissed due to lack of merit, reaffirming the mandatory pre-deposit requirement and the non-maintainability of re-agitated issues.