Court allows petition challenging Customs Commissioner's order after petitioner complies with pre-deposit requirement.

The court allowed the writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)-I for non-payment of the pre-deposit amount. Despite the initial failure to make the pre-deposit, the petitioner later complied with the requirement. The court directed the appeal to be heard on its merits after considering the compliance with the pre-deposit condition. The standing counsel's objections were dismissed, and the court emphasized the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit but accepted the petitioner's compliance, leading to the resolution of the matter without imposing costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge against an impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)-I for non-payment of pre-deposit.
2. Seeking direction for hearing and disposal of appeal on merits.
3. Objections raised by the standing counsel for the respondents.
4. Consideration of the appeal and compliance with mandatory pre-deposit condition.

Analysis:

1. The Writ Petition challenged the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)-I, which dismissed the appeal for non-payment of the pre-deposit of 7.5% of the demand as per the amendment that came into force on 6-8-2014. The petitioner had initially failed to make the pre-deposit but later deposited the entire 7.5% demanded amount. The petitioner sought direction for the appeal to be heard and disposed of on merits, as per the compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit condition.

2. The standing counsel for the respondents raised two objections. Firstly, it was argued that the petitioner, who did not make the pre-deposit while filing the appeal, should have approached the revisional authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, instead of seeking relief through the Writ Petition. Secondly, the counsel contended that the petitioner should only approach the revisional authority against the impugned order, rather than seeking redressal through the current proceedings.

3. The Court found no impediment for the petitioner to seek direction for the first appeal to be heard, as the petitioner had not faced any order on merits from the appellate authority. The impugned order highlighted the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit requirement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, since the petitioner had subsequently complied with the pre-deposit condition, the Court accepted the prayer and directed the second respondent to consider the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

4. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the petitioner had fulfilled the mandatory pre-deposit condition, as evidenced by the TR-6 Challan. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction for the appeal to be considered on its merits. The compliance with the pre-deposit requirement led to the resolution of the issue, and the Court closed the related miscellaneous petition without imposing any costs.

---