AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Pratap, J.—There is no dispute that against the impugned order dated 23rd October, 1987 at Exhibit N an appeal lies to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. If so, I see no good and valid reason why the petitioners should not prefer appeal against the impugned order, if they feel aggrieved thereby. The impugned order discloses reasons in support thereof. It also discloses application of mind. It may be that the order may or may not stand the test of judicial scrutiny or the scrutiny by the appellate authority. That, however, is no reason why the petitioners should ignore the statutory remedies and rush to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution all the more so when in an appeal provided by the statute all questions both of law and fact are open for consideration, appreciation and adjudication.
One more point. In the process of the petitioners approaching this Court, the appeal, if now filed, would be beyond the period of limitation. This delay is on the only ground that the petitioners have, instead of preferring appeal, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This delay deserves to be condoned provided the appeal is filed within the time directed below.
Hence order:
(a) In the event of the petitioners preferring against the impugned order an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, latest by 5th February 1988, the delay in filing the said appeal shall stand condoned and the Appellate Authority will hear and decide the said appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law.
(b) As the petitioners are unable to clear the goods of which they claim to be the actual users and since the goods have arrived almost about a year back, the Appellate Authority should hear and decide the petitioners'' appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event latest by the end of June, 1988.
(c) Pre-condition of deposit, if any, for preferring the aforesaid appeal is waived.
(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the said appeal, the respondents are restrained from auctioning the goods in question.
In view of what is stated and directed hereinabove, this petition is allowed to be withdrawn.