2022 (8) TMI 886 - AT - Customs

Tribunal denies restoration application due to Rule 20 inapplicability, filing delay, and lacking explanation.

M/s Anjani Technoplast Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Exports), New Delhi

M/s Anjani Technoplast Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Exports), New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Applicability of the amended vs. un-amended provisions of Section 129E.3. Timeliness and maintainability of the application for restoration under Rule 20 of the 1982 Rules.4. Financial hardship and its impact on compliance.5. Alleged incorrect legal advice and its consequences.Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 07.07.2015 due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the pre-amended Section 129E should apply, as the show cause notice was issued before 06.08.2014, even though the adjudicating authority's order was passed after that date. This argument was rejected based on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Ganesh Yadav vs. Union of India, which held that the amended Section 129E applies to appeals filed after 06.08.2014.2. Applicability of the Amended vs. Un-Amended Provisions of Section 129E:The Delhi High Court, in its order dated 20.10.2015, upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the amended Section 129E applied since the adjudicating authority's order was passed after 06.08.2014. The High Court noted, 'the amended Section 129E of the Act will apply to all appeals filed under Section 130 of the Act on or after 6th August 2014.' The Supreme Court also dismissed the appellant's appeal and subsequent review petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented.3. Timeliness and Maintainability of the Application for Restoration under Rule 20 of the 1982 Rules:The application for restoration was filed under Rule 20 of the 1982 Rules on 31.05.2022, nearly seven years after the original dismissal. Rule 20 allows for restoration if the appellant was absent during the hearing, but in this case, the appellant's counsel was present and made submissions. The Tribunal concluded that Rule 20 was inapplicable as the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement, not for default of appearance.4. Financial Hardship and Its Impact on Compliance:The appellant claimed financial hardship prevented the deposit of the statutory amount required under Section 129E. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for restoration. The appellant only deposited the mandatory 7.5% of the duty amounting to Rs. 44,70,237/- in September 2020, long after the appeal's dismissal.5. Alleged Incorrect Legal Advice and Its Consequences:The appellant alleged that their counsel failed to argue the main point regarding the inflated duty demand and instead focused on the applicability of the un-amended Section 129E. The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that the appellant had consistently raised the same ground before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, both of which dismissed the appeals.Conclusion:The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's application for restoration, citing the inapplicability of Rule 20, the significant delay in filing the application, and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had ample opportunity to comply with the statutory requirements and contest the appeal diligently but failed to do so. Consequently, the application for restoration was rejected.