2025 (8) TMI 1082 - HC - Customs

Appeal to decide duty demand on second container to proceed once petitioner deposits additional 50% pre-deposit within six weeks

Anuj Jain Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)

The HC held that the question of duty demand on the second container must be adjudicated by CESTAT on merits but the appeal could not be heard earlier for ... Town seizure - validity of duty demand in respect of the second container - HELD THAT:- In the opinion of this Court, the said issue would have to be adjudicated by CESTAT on merits. However, due to the lack of pre-deposit, the appeal has not been heard. The Petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 2,64,395/- towards pre deposit qua the penalties imposed on Mr. Anuj Jain. In respect of the first container, no duty has been demanded and in respect of the second container, full duty has been demanded. 7.5% of the value of the consignment of the duty demanded of Rs. 19,86,8395.5/- would amount to Rs. 14,90,129/-. This Court, considering the overall facts, is of the opinion that the appeal of the Petitioner deserves to be heard on merits, especially, as some pre- deposits have already been made - the Petitioner is permitted to deposit 50% of the pre deposit i.e. 50% of Rs. 14,90,129/- is Rs. 7,45,646/-, in addition to the pre deposit already made. Let the said deposit be made within six weeks. Upon such deposit being made by the Petitioner, the CESTAT shall hear the appeal of the Petitioner on merits. List before the CESTAT on 06th October, 2025 - Petition disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the demand of customs duty in respect of goods seized from a godown after the goods had been cleared from port (town seizure) is valid and is distinguishable from confiscation at port. 2. Whether differential treatment between two consignments-one confiscated at port and one subject to town seizure after clearance-justifies denial of relief from pre-deposit obligations for prosecuting an appeal before the appellate authority. 3. Whether the Court may exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to direct a reduced pre-deposit to enable adjudication on merits by the appellate tribunal where partial pre-deposits already exist. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of duty demand arising from town seizure after customs clearance versus confiscation at port Legal framework: Customs law requires assessment of duty and permits seizure/confiscation where statutory contraventions are established; town seizures may be made post-clearance where illicit goods are located off-port premises. Precedent Treatment: No specific authorities were cited or applied by the Court in the impugned order or oral hearing recorded in this judgment; the question is treated as one of factual and legal adjudication for the appellate authority (CESTAT) rather than determined by the High Court on the writ petition. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized a factual distinction between (a) confiscation at port where the goods were intercepted before clearance, and (b) a town seizure of goods that had been cleared and were later found in a godown. The Court observed that this factual distinction may bear upon the legal validity of the duty demand for the town-seized consignment, but expressly declined to adjudicate the merits on the writ petition, directing that the appellate forum (CESTAT) consider the validity on merits. Ratio vs. Obiter: It is obiter on the substantive question of the validity of duty demand because the Court did not finally decide the legal issue; instead it held that the issue requires adjudication by CESTAT on merits. Conclusion: The validity of the duty demand qua the second container remains to be adjudicated by CESTAT; the High Court did not rule on the legal merits but recognized the factual/legal distinction and remitted the question for hearing on merits. Issue 2: Whether differential treatment of two consignments justifies refusal of a uniform waiver of pre-deposit before CESTAT Legal framework: Appeals to CESTAT are subject to statutory/tribunal pre-deposit requirements; relief from full pre-deposit may be granted in appropriate cases by the tribunal or by the Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, taking into account facts, partial deposits and equities. Precedent Treatment: The judgment does not cite controlling precedent dealing with pre-deposit reduction or parity between consignments; the Court's approach is fact-driven rather than reference-based. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the factual matrix: one consignment had no duty demand (confiscation at port) while the other attracted a substantial duty demand following town seizure. The petitioner had already made certain pre-deposits (including penalties). The Court found that the two consignments, despite superficial similarity, were placed on different factual pedestals (port seizure vs post-clearance town seizure), which could justify different treatment; however, in view of partial deposits and overall circumstances, strict insistence on full pre-deposit would bar adjudication on merits. Ratio vs. Obiter: The observation that factual differences between port confiscation and town seizure may justify different treatment is part ratio for the limited relief granted (reducing pre-deposit), insofar as it supports the exercise of discretion to allow the appeal to be heard; detailed determination of whether differential treatment was legally justified is left to the tribunal and is therefore obiter as to substantive entitlement. Conclusion: Differential factual circumstances do not by themselves entitle automatic parity; nonetheless, having regard to partial deposits and equities, the Court exercised discretion to permit prosecution of appeal with a reduced pre-deposit rather than holding the matter as barred by non-deposit. Issue 3: Scope of Court's discretion to direct a reduced pre-deposit to enable adjudication on merits by the appellate tribunal Legal framework: Courts possess supervisory jurisdiction to ensure access to appellate adjudication and may direct appropriate interim/conditional measures (including modification of pre-deposit obligations) where equities and partial compliance exist, subject to preserving the revenue's interest. Precedent Treatment: No authorities were invoked; the Court relied on principles of equity, the existence of partial pre-deposits, and the need for merits adjudication by the competent tribunal. Interpretation and reasoning: Balancing the interest of revenue with the right to have the appeal heard, the Court quantified the pre-deposit: 7.5% of the duty demand was calculated, and considering deposits already made, the Court directed that 50% of the required pre-deposit (specific monetary amount) be deposited within a stipulated timeframe. The Court reasoned that this measured order would preserve the revenue interest while enabling the appellate forum to decide the central question on merits, thereby avoiding denial of justice due to complete inability to meet pre-deposit. Ratio vs. Obiter: The directive ordering a specific reduced pre-deposit and stipulating its payment as condition precedent to CESTAT hearing is ratio - a concrete exercise of the Court's supervisory discretion in the specific factual matrix of the case. General propositions about the power to reduce pre-deposits are obiter to the extent they are not formulated as binding legal tests. Conclusion: The Court exercised its discretion to enable hearing on merits by directing a reduced pre-deposit (50% of the calculated amount) in addition to amounts already deposited; upon such deposit, CESTAT was directed to hear the appeal on merits. All other rights and contentions were left open for adjudication by the tribunal. Cross-References and Application The Court linked Issues 1-3: recognizing that factual distinctions between port confiscation and town seizure (Issue 1) informed the analysis of whether equal pre-deposit treatment was warranted (Issue 2), which in turn supported the exercise of supervisory discretion to order a reduced pre-deposit to secure adjudication on merits by CESTAT (Issue 3). The substantive legality of the duty demand was expressly left for determination by the appellate forum.