Baidyanath Thakur vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The High Court disposed of the miscellaneous appeal. The Court noted that despite repeated calls, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. The counsel for the respondents stated that the non-appearance of the appellant's counsel was likely due to the appellant's loss of interest over time. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal, granting the appellant liberty to revive it if the need arose or to pursue other available remedies in accordance with the law. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

Facts

The appellant, Baidyanath Thakur, filed a miscellaneous appeal before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated September 10, 2019, passed by the Vice President of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). This CESTAT order upheld an earlier order dated February 12, 2009, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Patna. The original order imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lac on the appellant. The penalty was levied on the alleged ground of the appellant's involvement in the storage of prohibited customs goods, specifically 8090 Kg of red sandalwood valued at approximately Rs. 32,36,000. These goods were allegedly stored in a shop under the exclusive occupancy of one Aviral, pursuant to a rent agreement dated June 20, 2007. The appeal was listed multiple times, but the appellant's counsel did not appear.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant is liable for the penalty imposed for storage of prohibited customs goods, considering the goods were allegedly stored in a shop under the exclusive occupancy of another individual (Aviral) based on a rent agreement. The appellant's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The respondent's (Union of India and others) contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not explicitly state the arguments made by either side regarding the appellant's alleged involvement or the validity of the penalty, beyond the factual background presented.