2009 (3) TMI 670 - AT - Customs

Tribunal denies restoration due to non-compliance with deposit conditions & interim orders

The Tribunal rejected the restoration application as the appellants failed to comply with the deposit conditions set by the Tribunal and the High Court. ... Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of appeal Issues:Appeal restoration based on non-compliance with stay order.Analysis:The appellants sought to restore their appeal which was dismissed due to non-compliance with a stay order requiring a deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs out of a total duty of Rs. 1.01 Crore. Despite multiple opportunities and extensions granted by the Tribunal and the High Court, the appellants failed to make the required deposit within the specified timelines. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not comply with the deposit directive even after a significant period had passed since the dismissal of the appeal in 2005. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of coming to court with clean hands and the need for bona fide actions when seeking relief. It was highlighted that the appellants had not deposited the amount even at the time of the restoration application, reflecting a lack of good faith on their part.The Tribunal referenced various legal precedents where appeals were restored after the appellants deposited the required amounts as directed. In contrast, in this case, the appellants failed to fulfill the deposit conditions set by the Tribunal and the High Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal stressed the finality of the High Court's order and the legal consequences of non-compliance with interim orders. The appellants' delay in seeking restoration after around seven years and their failure to adhere to the directives over an extended period were significant factors in the Tribunal's decision to reject the restoration application.The Tribunal rejected the restoration application, citing the lack of justification for reinstating the appeal based on the appellants' prolonged non-compliance with the deposit requirements. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of respecting interim orders issued by the Tribunal and the High Court and the legal sanctity attached to such directives. The decision underscored the consequences of non-compliance and the inability of the appellants to seek relief after a substantial delay following the initial dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to reject the restoration application was based on the appellants' failure to comply with the deposit conditions set by the Tribunal and the High Court, the absence of bona fide actions in seeking relief, and the significant delay in addressing the non-compliance issue. The decision highlighted the legal consequences of disregarding interim orders and the importance of adhering to directives issued by the judiciary.