Judgment:
ORDER
SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT207of 2016 GA1888of 2016 GOPAL SAHA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.And APOT208of 2016 GA1889of 2016 AJGAR SHEIKH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.And GA2718of 2016 APOT319of 2016 GA2719of 2016 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Versus AJGAR SEIKH And GA2729of 2016 APOT320of 2016 GA2730of 2016 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Versus GOPAL SAHA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 23rd February, 2017.
Mr.Farook M.
Razack, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ravi Dubey, Adv.and Ms.Priyanka Bhuroria, Adv..for Appellant in APOT2072016 and for Respondent in APOT3202016 Mr.Soumya Majumdar, Adv.with Mr.Manaj Malhotra, Adv..for Appellant in APOT2082016 and …for Respondent in APOT3192016 Mr.Somnath Ganguli, Adv.with Mr.B.P.
Banerjee, Adv.…for Respondent in APOT2072016 and APOT2082016 for Appellant in APOT3192016 and APOT3202016 Re : GA1888of 2016 with APOT207of 2016 The instant application being GA1888of 2016 is for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal.
We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time.
We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal.
GA1888of 2016 is allowed in the above terMs.Re : GA1889of 2016 with APOT208of 2016 The instant application being GA1889of 2016 is for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal.
We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time.
We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal.
GA1888of 2016 is allowed in the above terMs.Re:GA No.2729 of 2016 with APOT No.320 OF2016The instant application is for condonation of delay of 94 days in preferring the appeal.
We have gone through the application of the Union of India being G.A.No.2729 of 2016 in which condonation of delay is prayed for.
In the application, the appellants have prayed for condonation of delay of 109 days.
As per the departmental endorsement, however, there is delay of 94 days in preferring the appeal.
The respondent/writ petitioner has also preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment with an application for condonation of delay.
We have allowed that application for condonation of delay.
The Union of India’s appeal is against the said order.
On going through the pleadings, we are satisfied that the appeal could not be preferred within prescribed time frame for sufficient cause.
After considering the fact that we have already condoned the delay in filing of appeal by the respondent-writ petitioner, we condone the delay in the instant case also.
G.A.No.2729 of 2016 is accordingly allowed.
Re:GA No.2718 of 2016 with APOT No.319 OF2016The instant application is for condonation of delay of 94 days in preferring the appeal.
We have gone through the application of the Union of India being G.A.No.2718 of 2016 in which condonation of delay is prayed for.
In the application, the appellants have prayed for condonation of delay of 109 days.
As per the departmental endorsement, however, there is delay of 94 days in preferring the appeal.
The respondent/writ petitioner has also preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment with an application for condonation of delay.
We have allowed that application for condonation of delay.
The Union of India’s appeal is against the said order.
On going through the pleadings, we are satisfied that the appeal could not be preferred within prescribed time frame for sufficient cause.
After considering the fact that we have already condoned the delay in filing of appeal by the respondent-writ petitioner, we condone the delay in the instant case also.
G.A.No.2718 of 2016 is accordingly allowed.
We are taking up these four appeals and the connected applications for stay directed against the judgment of the learned FiRs.Court passed on 28th April, 2016 in two writ petitions being W.P.No.279 of 2016 and W.P.No.280 of 2016.
Both the writ petitioners and the Union of India have preferred these appeals.
The main issue involved in these appeals is as to the interpretation of what would constitute prohibited goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
So far as the appeals of the writ petitioners are concerned, Mr.Razack, learned senior advocate, has confined his submissions to the grievance of his clients to the extent that specific opportunity should be given to the writ petitioners in the remand proceedings.
The Revenue in their appeals has taken out petitions seeking stay of the operation of the judgment under appeal.
Mr.Ganguli, learned advocate appearing for the Revenue submits that the learned FiRs.Court has come to a specific finding on what would constitute prohibited goods and the Revenue is aggrieved by the interpretation of the learned FiRs.Court on this point.
He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of CustoMs.New Delhi V.
Brooks International and Others reported in (2007) 10 SCC396 In this judgment, Om Prakash Bhatia v.
Commissioner of Customs reported in (2003) 6 SCC161has been relied upon to contend that the goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which the goods are imported or exported have not been complied with would constitute prohibited goods.
Mr.Razack, on the other hand, submits that in relation to statute dealing with imposition of tax, strict construction is necessary in so far as imposition of penalty is concerned.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 10th March, 2017; Reply, if any, be filed by 31st March, 2017.
Let all these appeals be listed on 4th April, 2017 under the same heading.
In the event the pleadings filed by the respective parties do not contain any document on which reliance was placed before the learned FiRs.Court, the same shall be produced before us with proper indexing.
On that condition, we dispense with the requirement of filing formal paper books.
The respondents in both the appeals waive service of notice of appeal and compliance of other formalities.
The appeals and the stay petitions shall be taken up together for hearing.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sm/sb