GLASS WORLD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the 50 stay petitions are being taken up together for disposal as the facts and circumstances involved are identical.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides duly represented by Shri P.P. Jadeja, learned Consultant and Shri M.M. Mathkar, learned J.D.R. we find that Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), vide his stay order dated 9th January 2008 directed the appellants to deposit 30% of the duty involved in the assessment, in respect of import of old and used tyres. The said directed amount was required to be paid by the appellants before 15th of January, 2008. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraph of the said order : I also find that prima facie the balance of justice is in favour of the revenue as the issue of classification of old and used pneumatic types is earlier decide by different quasi judicial authorities a different level of adjudication including Appellate stage. I also find it that revenue involved in the various cases is not quantified in the order in original. I therefore find that justice can only be made to the importer and to the issue if 20% of duty and penalty is ordered to be recovered by way of pre -deposit. I therefore, order that 30% of duty involved in the assessment carried out shall be paid forth with before 15 -1 -2008 and in case such payment being made on or before 15 -1 -2008 there shall be stay from payment of redemption fine, penalty and personal penalty if any imposed on the individuals as well as importer. The said order was received by the appellants on 15th January 2008 itself that is on the last date of expiry of six days period given by the appellate authority. The appellants filed a modification application on 15th January 2008 itself placing the fact of receipt of the letter by them on 15th January 2008 and requesting for re -consideration of the stay order as also for extension of time. The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently vide his office corrigendum dated 18th January 2008 modified his earlier stay order and informed the appellants to deposit 20% of the duty and penalty involved instead of 30% of duty involved, inasmuch as, the same was a typographical error in the earlier stay order. For better appreciation we reproduce the relevant part of the corrigendum dated 18th January 2008 : In the stay order No. l to 50/2008 S/49 -285 to 300'Kdl/Cus/07 issued by this office on 09 -01 -08, at page 4, in the last paragraph, for the words 30% of duty involved, the words 20% of duty and penalties involved may be substituted. In the same paragraph continued on page 5, for the words stay from payment of redemption fine, penalty, the words stay from payment of balance duty, penalty may be substituted. As is clear from the above corrigendum, no time limit was given by the Commissioner (Appeals) to deposit the above amount. In any case, the appellants deposited 30% of the duty amount, in terms of the earlier stay order on 19th January 2008 itself, before receipt of the corrigendum by them on 24 -1 -2008. Subsequently, vide his order dated 14 -2 -2008, the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs rejected all the appeals for noncompliance under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) WE are not happy with the manner of disposal of the stay petitions and the appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals). First of all, as is clear from his order dated 19th January 2008, he has directed the appellants to deposit a part amount before 15 January 2008 that is within a period of 6 days from the passing of the order. Some of the parties are situated in Delhi and the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot expect the order passed by him to be received by the appellants within a period 6 days and also to implement the same within the said period. The appellate authorities should have been fair to the appellants in this regard. Apart from the above, we find that in his discussion portion, the appellate authority has observed that justice can only be made if the appellants deposit 20% of duty and penalty but in operative part of his order, he directed them to deposit 30% of duty involved subject to which there shall be stay from payment of redemption fine, penalty and personal hearing, if any. It is pertinent to note here that he is not referring the balance of penalty while directing stay from payment. This indicates that the appellants were directed to deposit 30% of the duty only. We also note that in the discussion portion, the words and penalty appearing after 20% of duty are interpolated and not even signed by the appellate authority passing the order. We also note that 20% of the duty appearing in the discussion portion is also overwritten by cutting originally typed 30% of duty. In these circumstances, the subsequent corrigendum issued by the appellate authority looses its significance. In any case, even while passing corrigendum, the appellate authority has not fixed any period for the appellants to deposit the amount in question. The corrigendum was also passed after expiry of the period granted by him in the earlier stay order that is upto 15 January 2008. We wish that the appellate authority should have shown some application of mind to the matter instead of passing the order in a casual manner and subsequently dismissing the appeals for noncompliance. At this stage, we also note that in any case, the appellants had deposited 0% of duty on 19th January 2008 itself and placed the particulars of such deposit in the office of Commissioner (Appeals) on 21st January 2008, as is clear from the above receipted letter placed on record before us. Commissioner (Appeals) however, has not taken note of the above deposit and dismissed the appeals for non -compliance on 14 -02 -2008. We must express our concern at such slip -shod manner of disposal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Kandla.