1992 (4) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whether an appeal will lie against an order by Collector refusing to extend the validity period of the warehousing bond executed by the applicants. 2. Shri Mehta submitted that appeal is not maintainable since the impugned order was passed under Section 61 of the Customs Act as an administrative order. He said that requisition for extension of warehousing period of bond has been rejected by the Collector under proviso to Section 61(b) of the Customs Act. Since it is not an adjudicating proceedings but a mere administrative proceedings, no dispute exists and, as such, it is not an appealable order. He contended that judicial 'determination' or 'order' sought to be appealed against must also have character of judicial adjudication and dis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity in terms of the aforesaid Section. 4. In reply, Shri Ashok Mehta, learned SDR, submitted that Section 72 of the Act was considered in the decision cited by the appellant's counsel as it was with reference to Section 72 and further judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Sugar Mills (supra) was not taken note of as it was not placed before the Bench. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides and perused the records. The point to be considered is this case is whether an extension or rejection of validity period of warehousing bond as contemplated under proviso (ii) to Section 61(1)(b) amounts to an appealable order or not. The relevant provisions of Section 61(1)(b) proviso (ii) is reproduced as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompleted for bona fide reasons within the time laid in Section 110(2) and extension of the period has become necessary. Therefore, the words 'sufficient cause being shown' in Section 110(2) must mean that the Collector must determine on materials placed before him that they warrant extension of time. Therefore, there is no question in such cases of the subjective satisfaction of the Collector because what he is asked to do by the proviso is to determine that the cause shown before him warrants an extension of time. Hence, it is difficult to comprehend how he can come to this determination unless he has before him the pros and cons of the matter because ex parte determination by the Collector would expose his decision to be one sided and bas....