Case Law Details
Mohammed Fariz & Co Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Mohammed Fariz & Co., an importer of betel nuts, seeking to challenge the Customs Tribunal’s rejection of their appeal for condoning a 964-day delay. The case arose from a demand for short-levied customs duty of ₹3,98,613 on an imported consignment. The petitioner attributed the delay to an inadvertent oversight by their accountant, leading to the failure to file an appeal within the stipulated time. However, when the oversight was noticed, the company promptly filed an appeal along with a condonation request, arguing that the delay was unintentional.
The Tribunal, in its order, found the explanation inadequate and denied the condonation request, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the explanation provided was insufficient to justify such a prolonged delay. Since the petitioner failed to offer any concrete reasons beyond a general claim of oversight, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s ruling. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that significant procedural delays require a substantial and convincing justification.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Petitioner is an importer of betel nuts. In respect of one consignment, there was a demand for short levy amounting to `3,98,613/-. After various rounds of litigation against the order of adjudication, appeal was filed before the Tribunal, copy of which is Ext.P4. Along with the appeal, Ext.P5 application for condonation of delay of 964 days was filed. In the affidavit, it is stated thus:-
“ I submit that thereafter, even though the impugned Annexure-A order was received, the appellant omitted to file appeal against the impugned order due to an inadvertent oversight of the appellant’s accountant and hence the Revenue is demanding for the short levy duty of `3,98,613/- from the appellant. Immediately after noticing the non-filing of the present appeal against the impugned Annexure-A order, I had entrusted my counsel and within the shortest time period, the present appeal is filed. However, there occurred a delay of 964 days in filing the present appeal. Hence I had filed a petition to condone the delay of 964 days along the appeal.”
2. This application was considered by the Tribunal and by Ext.P6 order, the Tribunal rejected the application. It is this order which is under challenge. A reading of Ext.P6 order shows that according to the Tribunal, the appellant has not any justifiable reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
3. The only question that falls for examination is whether the view taken by the Tribunal in Ext.P6 warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As already seen, apart from stating that the delay has occurred on account of an inadvertent oversight of the petitioner’s accountant, there is absolutely no explanation or elaboration about the alleged inadvertent oversight. In my view, the reason stated is far from satisfactory, requiring condonation of such a long delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, I am not persuaded to take a view different from that of the Tribunal.
Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
Author Bio
