VISHAL IMPEX Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner an exporter, has filed this writ petition, challenging the order passed by the first respondent Tribunal, rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as time -barred. The allegation against the petitioner as made by the second respondent is that they filed 13 shipping bills at Inland Container Depot for export of dyed and printed fabrics made out of 100% polyester filament yarn/textured yarn by misdeclaring the value by over invoicing in order to get higher benefits under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) in contravention of Section 14(1) and Section 60 of the Customs Act, 1962. After affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, ICD, Tirupur by order dated 21 -6 -2006 re -determined the value of the exported goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 17,50,000/ - and redemption fine of Rs. 35,00,000/ -. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore which was dismissed due to non -compliance of the order of pre -deposit. Against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent Tribunal and the department also filed an appeal against the direction to dispose of the appeal without insisting upon any pre -deposit. Both appeals were disposed of by a common order on 28 -8 -2007, by remanding the matter to the appropriate authority to decide the case afresh. Thereupon the second respondent passed an Order -in -Original No. 1 of 2008, dated 25 -3 -2008, re -determining the value of the exported goods and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/ - under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act,. It is stated that, the Order -in -Original passed by the second respondent was received by the petitioner on 28 -5 -2008, and an appeal was filed before the first respondent Tribunal on 26 -8 -2008. The Registry of the first respondent Tribunal directed the petitioner to produce proof of date of receipt of the order passed by the second respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application to condone the delay by setting out certain reasons. The Tribunal by order dated 13 -1 -2009, dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that it was not satisfied with the reasons given, in the application. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THOUGH several grounds have been raised by the petitioner on the merits of the petitioner's case, at this stage this Court is not inclined to go into the same as the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent Tribunal should be condoned and whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.