Pre-deposit compliance and due notice defeated restoration of the dismissed customs appeal

Where a pre-deposit direction was made in the presence of counsel and due notice was shown, a plea of lack of knowledge of the hearing did not justify restoration of the appeal dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found no sufficient ground to revive the matter and rejected the restoration application, leaving the earlier dismissal in place.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal, dismissed earlier for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement, should be restored on the ground that the applicant had no notice of the hearing.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that due and sufficient notice had been given and that the applicant was represented by counsel when the order directing deposit of rupees one lakh was dictated in court. The plea of awareness of the hearing was therefore not accepted, and no ground was made out for restoration after dismissal under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition.

Conclusion: The restoration application was rejected and the dismissed appeal was not restored.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the earlier dismissal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order and declined to revive the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a pre-deposit direction is passed in the presence of counsel and sufficient notice is shown, a plea of lack of knowledge does not justify restoration after dismissal for non-compliance.

---