Customs appeal rejection quashed for overly technical approach ignoring financial difficulty plea under Section 129-E

Bombay HC allowed petition challenging rejection of customs appeal for non-deposit of 7.5% pre-deposit under Section 129-E of Customs Act. Court found Additional Secretary's approach overly technical, noting petitioner's financial difficulty plea wasn't considered on merits. HC quashed orders of Appellate and Revisional authorities, directing appeal be heard on merits by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-III. Court emphasized interest of justice required substantive adjudication rather than technical rejection.

---

---

Issues:
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing an order rejecting the petitioner's Revision Application against an order passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner was aggrieved by the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal due to non-payment of pre-deposit. The petitioner approached the Revisional Authority raising contentions regarding financial difficulties and non-realization of export proceeds. The Revisional Authority rejected the revision application based solely on the non-payment of pre-deposit.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of Drawback amount and imposed a penalty on the exporter for non-submission of Negative Statements within the prescribed time limit under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal citing the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the amount demanded on account of duty drawback and penalty. The appeal was deemed not maintainable due to the failure to make the pre-deposit.

3. The petitioner raised contentions before the Revisional Authority regarding financial difficulties, non-realization of export proceeds, and the imposition of pre-deposit. However, the Revisional Authority rejected the revision application solely based on the non-payment of pre-deposit without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner.

4. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, found the view taken by the Revisional Authority to be overly technical. The Court noted that specific grounds related to financial difficulties were not considered. The Court held that the impugned orders should be quashed, and the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to have their appeal adjudicated on merits.

5. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, and restored the appeal to the Appellate Authority for a hearing on merits. The deposit made by the petitioner was considered valid for the appeal, and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously within four months.

---