TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 31-8-1987 for clearance of the goods. The first respondent also produced 45 numbers of REP licences issued against export product GP(2)(1)(a)/G-19 of Appendix 17 of the Import Policy 1985-88. The licences produced were valid for the import of seeds, bulbs, mother plants etc. The first respondent claimed that the REP licences were valid for import of rape seed as per paragraph 70(2) and paragraph 76 of the Import Policy 1985-88 and that they have complied with the requirement of paragraph 70(2) by informing the canalizing agency about it. The first respondent claimed that the term "seeds" occurring in the description of the licence would cover rape seed also. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, took the stand that as rape seed is specifically mentioned in Appendix V, Part B it falls within the purview of paragraph 197(2) and paragraph 75 of the Import Policy and inasmuch as the requirements of paragraph 76 have not been complied with, the licences produced were not valid for import of the goods and the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111B of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947. The Collector of Customs, Cochin, ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kuljeet Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent importer. Sri. Kuljeet Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as regards the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this original petition. The learned counsel on both sides made submissions as regards the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the original petition and touching upon the merits of the order passed by the CEGAT declining to condone the delay of 13 days in filing the application for reference under sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Act. Sri. John Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the origin of the dispute which was the subject matter of the adjudication by the Collector of Customs and the appeal before the CEGAT and the subject matter of the application for reference was the import of rape seed through Cochin Port, that the original order which was set aside by the CEGAT was passed at Cochin and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the original petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended that the High Court of Chennai also has jurisdiction to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30 of the Act, that the delay had also been properly explained and therefore, the CEGAT erred in dismissing the application to condone the delay in filing the application for reference. 6. Per contra Sri. Kuljeet Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, contended that the cause of action for the instant original petition arose at Chennai when the South Zonal Bench of the CEGAT at Chennai rejected the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the application for reference, that the effect of the order dismissing the application to condone the delay is at Chennai, the situs of CEGAT, that there is no averment in the original petition that any part of the cause of action has arisen within the State of Kerala, that the averments in the original petition are with reference to the delay in filing the application for reference, that the relief sought is also with reference to the refusal to condone the delay in filing the application for reference, that no part of the cause of action which led to the filing of the instant original petition arose at Cochin and therefore, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to a cause of action within this Court's territorial jurisdiction, unless those facts pleaded have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the instant case and that facts which have no bearing on the lis or the dispute involved in the instant original petition cannot give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the cause of action for the instant original petition is the dismissal of the application to condone the delay in filing the application for reference, that the said cause of action arose solely at Chennai and not within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the instant original petition is not maintainable in this Court. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, (1972) 1 SCC 366, Shanti Prasad Gupta v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1981 (Supp) SCC 73 and Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 = 2012 (277) E.L.T. (289) (S.C.) the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that in the matter of condonation of delay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the goods in question were imported through Cochin Port. The order of adjudication (Ext. PI) was passed at Cochin by the Collector of Customs on 23-9-1987. The original authority, after adjudication, held that the REP licence produced by the first respondent importer did not cover the goods imported viz. 1800 MT of rape seed, from France. He accordingly ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,50,000/- on the importer. He however, gave the importer an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,00,000/-. That led to an appeal under Section 129 of the Act before the CEGAT at Chennai. By a majority decision, the CEGAT held in favour of the importer and by Ext. P2 order dated 28-12-1995, set aside the order passed by the original authority. A copy of Ext. P2 order was communicated to the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin and it was received by him only on 8-4-1996. This fact which had been specifically averred in the application for reference was not denied by the first respondent. Under Section 130(1) of the Act as it then stood, an application for reference had to be filed within 60 days from the date on which the Commissioner of Custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lies. The CEGAT held that even after the Central Board of Excise and Customs informed the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, that a reference application has to be filed, he took another 15 days to file it, though he was aware that the reference application was required to be filed within 60 days and the last date prescribed for filing the application was 7-6-1996, the date on which the period of 60 days expired. This order has given rise to the instant original petition. A reading of the impugned order discloses that the CEGAT dismissed the application to condone the delay on the ground that the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin (the petitioner herein) has not explained what transpired between 6-6-1996 to 20-6-1996. As stated earlier, the first respondent herein did not enter appearance and contest the application. Having regard to the fact that the appellate order of the CEGAT had referred in detail to the contentions of both sides and the question of law which was required to be referred to the High Court, I am of the considered opinion that in the absence of any objection to the application to condone delay, the CEGAT erred in holding that the petitioner has not shown sufficient ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of the Apex Count in Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Another (2012 (3) SCC 563) = 2012 (277) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) that the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and in the absence of any explanation the CEGAT was perfectly justified in dismissing the application to condone the delay, the Apex Court has in the very decision observed that except when there is gross negligence or lack of bona fides, a liberal stand has to be adopted to serve substantial justice, though in that case the Apex Court held that on the facts and circumstances there was no proper explanation for the delay and therefore the appeals are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. Having regard to the facts noticed above including the fact that the first respondent had not entered appearance and opposed the application to condone delay and in the absence of a case for the first respondent that there was gross negligence or lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner, I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the petitioner has not made out a case for condonation of the short delay of 13 days i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situated having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority." 13. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, however, objects to the maintainability of the original petition in this Court for want of jurisdiction contending that dispute in this original petition, namely, the refusal by the CEGAT to condone the delay in filing the application for reference cannot give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court. It is contended that the facts pleaded in this original petition are in relation to the refusal to condone delay which alone has a bearing on the dispute involved in the instant case, that it took place at Chennai within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at ....