SYNTHETICS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, Petitioners seek to challenge orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dismissing the Petitioners' appeal against the order of confiscation on the ground of delay and also on the ground that no sufficient cause for condonation was shown by the Petitioners.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this Petition, briefly, are as follows:

(3.) PETITIONERS imported 5940 kilograms of goods known as wetting out Agents from time to time. After the said goods landed in India, the Assistant Collector of Customs issued a show-cause notice on 15-10-1979 to the effect that the said goods were banned items under appendix III of the AM/79 Policy. By order dated 26-12-1979 Petitioners' contention that the said goods were not banned under the Policy was rejected by the Collector. The Collector also ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. Petitioners were, however, permitted to redeem the confiscated goods by paying a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of the confiscation. At this stage it may be mentioned that the Petitioners paid the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and have already cleared the goods in question. Being aggrieved by the said Order of the Collector dated 26-12-1979, petitioners preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which, at the relevant time was the Appellate Authority. It is important to note that although the order of the collector was dated 26-2-1979 the Appeal was preferred to the Board on 10-6-1980. Petitioners in this appeal sought condonation of delay. Respondent No. 3 - Board rejected the Petitioners' appeal on 31-12-1980 on the ground that the Petitioners' appeal was clearly time-barred and no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay. Thereafter, Petitioners preferred Revision application in July 1981 to the Government of India once again challenging the order of the board dated 31-12-1980. This was also time barred. The said Revision Application came to be transferred to CEGAT because in the meantime the law underwent a change and the jurisdiction was transferred and vested in CEGAT. In the circumstances, by the impugned judgment and order CEGAT came to the conclusion that the Petitioners have delayed the matter at each stage; that the Appeal to the Board was time-barred; that Appeals were filed without appropriate authorisation and even proper Court Fees have not been paid. In the above circumstances, the appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal as stated above.