Tribunal cannot dismiss customs appeal without hearing when appellant complied with mandatory pre-deposit requirements under Section 112

The Kerala HC allowed an appeal against the Tribunal's dismissal of a customs appeal under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had complied with the mandatory pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs in 2017 and filed an appeal under Section 129A(1). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine citing a pending writ petition on the same matter before the HC. The HC held that the Tribunal should have granted reasonable opportunity to the appellant to pursue the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it summarily, especially considering the appellant's bona fides in making the pre-deposit and compliance with statutory requirements.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against dismissal of restoration application for appeal u/s 112(a) and (b) of Customs Act, 1962 due to delay in filing, challenge of dismissal of Writ Petition, validity of Tribunal's orders.

Appeal against dismissal of restoration application: Appellant filed Writ Petition challenging penalty imposition of Rs. 2 Crores u/s 112(a) and (b) of Customs Act, 1962. Tribunal dismissed appeal due to delay, stating appellant approached High Court on same issue. Restoration application dismissed due to delay, lack of justification. Appellant filed Writ Petition after recovery proceedings initiated. Appellant argued for restoration based on compliance with pre-deposit, steps taken post-dismissal. Tribunal's dismissal questioned for lack of consideration of reasons for delay. Appellant sought direction to restore appeal for consideration on merits.

Challenge of dismissal of Writ Petition: Appellant's counsel contended delay justified, pre-deposit compliance showed bonafides. Criticized Tribunal's dismissal in limine, lack of breathing time. Assailed Tribunal's dismissal of restoration petition for lack of reasoning. Counsel emphasized appellant's actions post-dismissal, urged restoration for merit consideration. Counsel argued Single Judge erred in dismissal, overlooked reasons for delay, pre-deposit compliance. Counsel sought direction to restore appeal for consideration on merits.

Validity of Tribunal's orders: Tribunal dismissed appeal in limine despite pre-deposit compliance, pending Writ Petition. High Court set aside Tribunal's orders, directed restoration of appeal for merit consideration within six months. Emphasized courts should decide on merits, not default. Cited Supreme Court precedents on deciding cases on merits. Tribunal criticized for not affording appellant opportunity to challenge penalty imposition on merits. High Court allowed Writ Appeal, setting aside Single Judge's judgment.

Conclusion: High Court allowed Writ Appeal, setting aside Single Judge's judgment, directing restoration of appeal for merit consideration within six months, criticizing Tribunal's dismissal in limine and lack of opportunity for appellant to challenge penalty imposition on merits.

---