CESTAT told to decide re-testing request on merits after earlier lapse, appellant given one final hearing chance

HC held that the appeal involved issues not addressed by CESTAT, particularly regarding permission for re-testing of the goods' samples and the merits of the application for such re-testing. Noting that these questions were not discussed in the impugned orders, HC found that they must be considered on merits by CESTAT. While observing laxity by the appellant in not filing written submissions and repeatedly seeking adjournments, HC nonetheless granted another opportunity. The appellant was directed to appear before CESTAT on 15 December 2025, and the petition was disposed of.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether delay in filing the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 ought to be condoned.

1.2 Whether, in an appeal under Section 130, interference is warranted with the orders of the Tribunal passed without hearing the appellant on merits, where adjournment was refused, written submissions were not filed, and the Tribunal did not consider the appellant's request for re-testing of samples.

1.3 Whether the question of re-testing of imported goods, and the merits of the application therefor, are matters to be determined by the Tribunal on merits rather than in appeal under Section 130.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Condonation of delay in filing the appeal

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.1 The Court noted the reasons set out in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. No contrary prejudice or contest on such delay was recorded in the order.

Conclusions:

2.2 The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the application was allowed.

Issue 2 - Scope of interference under Section 130 where Tribunal decided without hearing on merits

Legal framework (as discussed):

2.3 The Court recorded that appeals from the Tribunal are entertainable under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 only if a substantial question of law is raised.

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.4 The impugned orders of the Tribunal recorded that: (i) the adjournment sought by the appellant was not granted; (ii) the appeal was decided without the appellant's effective participation; and (iii) the appellant had failed even to file written submissions.

2.5 The Court took note of the appellant's contention that a meaningful opportunity to address the Tribunal on the merits of the appeal, including on the request for re-testing of samples, had not been afforded.

2.6 While acknowledging "laxity" and repeated adjournments on the part of the appellant, the Court examined whether, to meet the ends of justice, the appellant should yet be afforded an opportunity before the Tribunal to argue the appeal substantively after filing written submissions.

2.7 The Court also noted the connected matter in which costs had already been imposed on the petitioner therein, indicating the Court's concern with dilatory conduct but balancing it against the need for merits-based adjudication.

Conclusions:

2.8 The Court held that, in order to meet the ends of justice, the appellant should be granted an opportunity to appear before the Tribunal, file written submissions, and argue the appeal on merits.

2.9 The impugned orders of the Tribunal were effectively set aside to the extent necessary to restore the matter for hearing on merits before the Tribunal, with directions for appearance on a specified date and for decision in accordance with law.

Issue 3 - Forum and manner for consideration of request for re-testing of samples

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.10 A central aspect of the appellant's case was its request for re-testing of samples of the imported goods, which formed part of the controversy regarding their classification and nature.

2.11 The Court expressly noted that the question whether re-testing ought to be permitted, and whether there is merit in the application for re-testing, "would have to be considered by the CESTAT on merits".

2.12 It was further noted that this issue did not find any mention or discussion in the impugned orders of the Tribunal, indicating that the Tribunal had not adjudicated this aspect on merits.

Conclusions:

2.13 The Court concluded that the question of re-testing of samples is a matter to be examined and decided by the Tribunal on merits, after affording due opportunity to the appellant.

2.14 The High Court refrained from deciding the issue of re-testing itself in this appeal, leaving all rights and remedies of the parties open for consideration by the Tribunal.

---