M/S. R.S. Mehra Trading Company, Vs. Commissioner of Customs, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....act, giving an option to them to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of rs.1 lakh, and imposed personal penalty of rs.2 lakhs on the party under section 112(a) of the act. the importer filed appeal against the said order with the commissioner (appeals) and also filed therein an application for wavier of pre-deposit of the stay application by an order directing the party to deposit an amount of rs.1 lakh for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits. that direction was to complied with by the appellants, professedly, on account of financial hardships.the lower appellate authority, on finding that its direction for deposit had not been complied with, rejected the appellant's appeal as not maintainable on account the non-compliance with the direction for deposit. the party has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the commissioner (appeals) on the ground of violation of natural justice and on other grounds.4. ld. advocate shri l.p. asthana for the appellants submits that he direction of the commissioner (appeals) for deposit of rs.1 lakh could not be complied with by the appellants on account of financial hardships and that the diad amount has since been deposited.....

Judgment:

1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I allow the present application and take up the appeal itself for final disposal.

2. The adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation of the goods imported by the appellants, under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, giving an option to them to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.1 lakh, and imposed personal penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on the party under Section 112(a) of the Act. The importer filed appeal against the said order with the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed therein an application for wavier of pre-deposit of the stay application by an order directing the party to deposit an amount of Rs.1 lakh for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits. That direction was to complied with by the appellants, professedly, on account of financial hardships.

The lower appellate authority, on finding that its direction for deposit had not been complied with, rejected the appellant's appeal as not maintainable on account the non-compliance with the direction for deposit. The party has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of violation of natural justice and on other grounds.

4. Ld. Advocate Shri L.P. Asthana for the appellants submits that he direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) for deposit of Rs.1 lakh could not be complied with by the appellants on account of financial hardships and that the diad amount has since been deposited by them as evidenced by the copy of TR.6 challan available on record. I have noted that the amount of Rs.1 lakh, which was directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to be deposited, has since been deposited by the party and, further, that the delay in making the deposit has been explained in the stay application as well as the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal. In view of this position, I am inclined to remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for disposal of the appeal before it on merits. I have heard Id. SDR Shri A.K.Jain as well. He has no serious objection such a remand.

5. The impugned order is set aside and the Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to dispose of the appeal before him on its merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The deposit of Rs.1 lakh made by the appellants under TR.6 challan dated 3rd March 2001 shall be reckoned as due compliance with the stay order No.1/Cus/Stay/2000 dated 03.07.2000 of the Commissioner (Appeals).