Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Vrundavan Exports vs Union Of India & 2 on 4 December, 2014

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, Vipul M. Pancholi

         C/SCA/7188/2014                                     ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7188 of 2014

================================================================
                    VRUNDAVAN EXPORTS....Petitioner(s)
                                 Versus
                    UNION OF INDIA & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.D K.PUJ, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
               and
               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                             Date : 04/12/2014


                              ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. The   petitioner   has   challenged   the   appellate   order   dated  6.1.2014   passed   by   the   Additional   Director   General   of  Foreign Trade as at Annexure­J to the petition. Under such  order   the   appeal   of   the   petitioner   came   to   be   dismissed  only   on   the   ground   of   not   fulfilling   the   pre­deposit  requirement  contained  in section  15 of the Foreign  Trade  (Development   and   Regulation)   Act,   1992,   as   can   be   seen  from the discussion of the order as under :

"3. Aggrieved   by   the   above   Order­in­Original,   the  Appellant   preferred   the   present   appeal.   Opportunity   of  personal  hearing  was granted  on 16.09.2011,  22.07.2013  and   09.09.2013.   Mr.   V.M.   Doiphode,   Advocate,   appeared  on behalf of the Appellant firm on 09.09.2013. He informed  Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/7188/2014 ORDER that they have filed an appeal before CESTAT against the  Order,   passed   by   O/o   Commissioner   of   Custom,   as   was  informed by the firm vide their letter dated 05.10.2012. 

4. I have examined complete facts of the case including  the   submissions   made   by   the   Appellant,   contents   of   the  Adjudication   Order   and   report   from   RA,   Ahmedabad.   I  observe   that   the   Appellant   was   not   submitted   proof   of  depositing penalty amount along with its appeal. In terms  of   provisions   of   Section   15   of   the   Foreign   Trade  (Development   and  Regulation)   Act,   1992,   no   such  appeal  shall   be   entertained   unless   the   amount   of   penalty   or  redemption charges has been deposited by the Appellant."

2. Learned counsel Shri Puj for the petitioner submitted that  section   15   of   the   Foreign   Trade   (Development   and  Regulation)   Act,   1992   though   required   making   of   pre­ deposit   of   penalty,   it   also   authorises   the   appellate  authority  to waive  such  requirement  in appropriate  case.  The   petitioner   had   moved   a   separate   application   for  stay/waiver of pre­deposit of penalty. Such application was  never   decided,   instead,   the   appeal   itself   came   to   be  dismissed   for   want   of   satisfying   the   pre­deposit  requirement.

3. We   notice   that   section   15   of   the   Foreign   Trade  (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 pertains to appeal  to the appellate  authority  enabling  a person  aggrieved  by  any decision  or order made by the adjudicating authority  passed   under   the   said   Act   to   prefer   an   appeal   to   the  specified   authorities.   Second   proviso   to   sub­section(1)   of  section   15   provides   that   in   case   of   an   appeal   against   a  decision or order imposing penalty or redemption charges,  no such appeal shall be entertained unless the penalty or  Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/7188/2014 ORDER redemption  charges  has  been  deposited  by the  appellant.  Further   proviso   to   said   sub­section   reads   "Provided   also  that, where  the Appellate Authority  is of opinion  that the  deposit   to   be   made   will   cause   undue   hardship   to   the  appellant,   it   may,   at   its   discretion,   dispense   with   such  deposit either unconditionally or subject to such conditions  as it may impose."

4. Thus though as per sub­section(1) of section 15, an appeal  against an order of penalty or redemption charges should  ordinarily be accompanied by payment of such amounts, it  is within the power of the appellate authority  to waive fully  or   in   part   such   requirement   either   unconditionally   or  subject to conditions if it is found that such deposit would  cause undue hardship to the appellant. 

5. Under   the   circumstances,   when   the   petitioner   had   made  such an application  making  specific request  for waiver  of  pre­deposit   requirement,   the   appeal   could   not   have   been  dismissed on the ground that the appellant did not fulfill  such pre­deposit requirement. It was expected in law of the  appellate authority to first decide such an application even  if   the   application   was   rejected   by   the   appellate   authority  refusing   to   waive   pre­deposit   requirement   or   same   was  waived  on some  condition,  the appellate  authority  had to  give   reasonable   time   to   the   appellant   to   either   make   full  pre­deposit  or to fulfill the condition  that may have  been  imposed in such order. In any case, dismissal of the appeal  for want of pre­deposit without disposing of the petitioner's  application for waiver thereof was simply not permissible. 

6. Under  the  circumstances  impugned  order  dated  6.1.2014  is  quashed.  The   appellate  authority   shall   first   decide   the  application  of the petitioner  for waiver  of pre­deposit  and  proceed thereafter, in accordance with law bearing in mind  the observations made above.

7. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) raghu Page 4 of 4