2023 (8) TMI 1411 - HC - Customs

Appeal Dismissed Due to Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Requirement Under Customs Act; Alternative Remedy Available.

The appellant, a proprietorship firm, failed to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962, leading to ... Maintainability of appeal - obligation to pay the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the duty confirmed against it for the purposes of maintaining the appeal - HELD THAT:- It is found that the appeal has necessarily to be dismissed since it is not in dispute that the appellant did not comply with the directions of this Court in Ext.P8 judgment and the terms of the undertaking furnished, to pay 10% of the duty amount as a condition for maintaining the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. That being the case, the appellant cannot be heard to complain when the Tribunal dismissed its appeal for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit as well as the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are compliance with mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962, and the maintainability of the Writ Petition against the final order passed by the Tribunal.Compliance with mandatory pre-deposit:The appellant, a proprietorship firm trading in bulbs and electronic goods, approached the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal aggrieved by a demand of anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal required a pre-deposit of 10% of the duty for maintaining the appeal. Despite earlier court directions, the appellant did not pay the mandatory pre-deposit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962.Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order in a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the grounds of having an effective alternative remedy. The appellant then appealed this decision. However, the Division Bench directed the appellant to pay court fees and stayed the operation of the impugned order. Upon hearing arguments, the Court found that the appellant failed to comply with the court's directions and terms of the undertaking, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the appellant cannot complain when the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement and court directions. Therefore, the Writ Appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.This judgment highlights the importance of complying with statutory requirements and court directions in legal proceedings, emphasizing the consequences of non-compliance in maintaining appeals before the Tribunal.