1988 (8) TMI 112 - HC - Customs

Appeal allowed, orders set aside, matter to be disposed of on merits.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders of the learned Judge and the respondents. The second respondent was directed to take the appeal on file ... Limitation Issues Involved:1. Violation of Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act2. Maintainability of Writ Petition3. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to Customs ActSummary:Violation of Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act:The appellants, a registered partnership firm and its partners, exported five consignments declared as woollen mixed blankets and applied for drawback refund u/s 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Collector of Customs issued a show cause notice alleging the goods were shoddy blankets with lower terrylene content than declared. The Deputy Collector of Customs imposed penalties on the firm and partners and rejected the drawback refund claim.Maintainability of Writ Petition:The appellants filed a writ petition (C.W.P. No. 2191 of 1976) for quashing the impugned order and for a mandamus directing the respondents to give the drawback refund. The court dismissed the petition, directing the appellants to exhaust the alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Act. The Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition on similar grounds.Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to Customs Act:The appellants' appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs was dismissed as time-barred. They filed a revision to the Government of India, which was also dismissed. They then filed another writ petition (C.W.P. No. 1289 of 1979) challenging the orders on the ground of limitation. The learned Single Judge held that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act could not be invoked for calculating the period of limitation for the appeal.The court examined Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows the application of Sections 4 to 24 unless expressly excluded by special or local law. The court distinguished the case from the Supreme Court decision in The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow v. M/s. Arson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, noting that Section 128 of the Customs Act does not expressly exclude the application of Section 14. The court concluded that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings under the Customs Act, and the time spent in the High Court and Supreme Court should be excluded.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders of the learned Judge and the respondents. The second respondent was directed to take the appeal on file and dispose of it on merits. No order as to costs was made.