Customs appeal cannot be dismissed for delayed third-party reply; merits hearing must follow after notice to the parties.

A customs appeal could not be dismissed merely because a reply from a third-party government division was still awaited, when the appellants were not responsible for the delay. The proper course was to seek a prompt categorical response from that authority and then hear the appeal on merits after notice to the appellants. Treating the pending reply as a basis to render the stay application infructuous was held unjust, improper, and unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal and stay application were restored for decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the main appeal and rendering the stay application infructuous because a reply was awaited from the Director, Research and Development Division, Ministry of Science and Technology, and whether the impugned order could stand.

Analysis: The petitioners were not responsible for the delay in receipt of the confirmation sought by the Collector from a third-party authority. The proper course was to remind the authority for a prompt categorical reply and thereafter hear the appeal on merits after notice to the petitioners. Dismissing the appeal for want of such reply was unjust, improper, and unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and quashed, the appeal and stay application were restored, and the appellate authority was directed to obtain the reply and then decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

---