High Court allows withdrawal of challenge to order, Tribunal rejects ROM applications due to delay

The High Court allowed withdrawal of the challenge to the order, permitting the filing of Rectification of Mistake (ROM) applications before the Tribunal within the specified time limit under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal determined that it lacked the authority to condone delays beyond the prescribed six-month period for filing ROM applications. As the plea regarding the import of photocopiers was not raised during the appeal proceedings, the ROM applications were rejected, and Condonation of Delay applications were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing Rectification of Mistake (ROM) applications under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Condonation of delay in filing ROM applications.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain ROM applications filed beyond the prescribed time limit.
4. Consideration of plea not raised during the appeal hearing for rectification.

Analysis:

1. The applicant filed ROM applications in relation to a final order reducing redemption fine and penalty on imported goods. The High Court allowed withdrawal of the challenge to the order, permitting the filing of ROM applications before the Tribunal within the specified time limit under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Tribunal noted that the ROM applications were filed after the expiration of the six-month time limit from the date of the order, raising the issue of delay. The applicant also submitted a Condonation of Delay (COD) application along with the ROM applications.

3. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, which allows for condonation of delays in presenting appeals or cross-objections but does not extend to filing ROM applications. It was determined that Section 129B(2) does not grant the Tribunal the authority to condone delays beyond the prescribed six-month period for filing ROM applications.

4. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the mistake highlighted by the appellant regarding the non-consideration of their plea concerning the import of photocopiers not being restricted items during the relevant period. The appellant acknowledged that this plea was not raised or argued during the appeal hearing, where the focus was solely on reducing the redemption fine and penalty.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the ROM applications were filed beyond the statutory time limit, were not eligible for condonation of delay, and did not present a valid ground for rectification as the plea in question was not raised during the appeal proceedings. Therefore, the ROM applications were rejected, and the COD applications were disposed of accordingly.

---