2024 (12) TMI 620 - HC - Customs

Petition dismissed-cannot admit appeals without mandatory statutory pre-deposit under Section 129E of Customs Act, per precedent

Petition dismissed. HC held it could not direct the appellate authority to admit appeals without the statutory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the ... Pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act - Doctrine of judicial review under Article 226 and limits to waiver of statutory pre-deposit - Binding effect of Supreme Court precedent on High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction - Waiver of statutory pre-deposit only in rare and deserving casesPre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act - Doctrine of judicial review under Article 226 and limits to waiver of statutory pre-deposit - Binding effect of Supreme Court precedent on High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction - Prayer for waiver of the statutory pre-deposit and restoration/admission of the appeal dismissed for non-deposit was refused. - HELD THAT: - The Court declined to entertain the petition seeking direction to the appellate authority to admit the appeal without the minimum pre-deposit mandated by Section 129E of the Customs Act. The High Court held that contentions on merits were not sufficient to justify relief from the statutory pre-deposit requirement and observed that it was unnecessary to decide the merits. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Kotak Mahindra, which precludes a High Court in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction from directing admission of an appeal in contravention of a mandatory statutory pre-deposit. A coordinate-bench decision of this Court (Manjit Singh) denying waiver of the minimum pre-deposit was noted as considering similar contentions. The Court observed that decisions of the Delhi High Court cited by petitioners did not consider Kotak Mahindra, and that the limited class of 'rare and deserving cases' permitting waiver was not made out here. The petitioners' prior writ proceedings, wherein it was recorded that statutory pre-deposit requirements must be satisfied, were also noted as making the present relief impermissible. For these reasons the Court dismissed the petition without granting waiver of the pre-deposit or restoring the appeal. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 11, 12]Petition dismissed; no waiver of the statutory pre-deposit under Section 129E granted and no direction to admit or restore the appeal.Final Conclusion: The writ petition seeking waiver of the statutory pre-deposit under Section 129E and restoration/admission of the appeal is dismissed; the High Court will not direct admission of an appeal contrary to the mandatory pre-deposit requirement in view of the Supreme Court's ruling that Article 226 cannot be used to override such statutory mandates. Issues:Petition seeking direction to admit appeal without pre-deposit under Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The petitioners sought a direction to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to admit their appeal without requiring a pre-deposit as mandated by Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The argument put forth was that penalties cannot be imposed on gold without foreign marking, citing specific instances where the gold did not meet the specified criteria. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to argue that in certain cases, courts can waive the pre-deposit requirement under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the court found these contentions irrelevant and unconvincing, stating that the merits of the case were not necessary to discuss. The relief sought by the petitioners contradicted the statutory provision of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The court referenced a Supreme Court decision to emphasize that even the High Court should not direct appellate authorities to hear appeals without the required pre-deposit. Additionally, a previous decision by the court's Coordinate Bench was cited, where a similar relief of waiving the pre-deposit was declined, considering all arguments raised in the current petition and past precedents on the matter.The court concluded that based on the decisions of the Supreme Court and their own court, there was no basis to grant relief to the petitioners. It was highlighted that the petitioners had previously challenged an order without resorting to the appellate remedy, and the court had clarified the statutory requirement of pre-deposit during that proceeding. Despite this, the petitioners chose to file an appeal without the pre-deposit, leading to the current petition seeking relief contrary to statutory provisions. The court reiterated that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used against mandatory statutory requirements. The court also addressed the reliance on Delhi High Court decisions by the petitioners, pointing out that those judgments did not consider the Supreme Court's decision highlighted in this case. Furthermore, the nature of the petitioners' business dealing with gold and diamond jewelry was contrasted with the cases of poor daily wage earners considered in the Delhi High Court decisions.In light of the above reasons, the court dismissed the petition without imposing any costs. The court emphasized that the case did not present a rare or deserving situation where a waiver of the pre-deposit could be granted, even if such discretion were available under extraordinary jurisdiction. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and established legal principles in matters concerning pre-deposit requirements under the Customs Act, 1962.