M/S Marina Enterprises Thr. Anthony Mathews vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the order under review. It reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in Chandra Shekhar Jha V/s. Union of India and Another, which was considered by the Court, clearly stated that Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962, is not discretionary. The Court noted that the amended provision reduced the pre-deposit to 7.5% but removed the discretion of the appellate body to scale it down. The Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Jha also held that the legislative intention was not to allow appellants to avail the benefit of discretionary power under the proviso to the substituted Section 129E when they are not called upon to pay the full amount. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the provision was discretionary or that the earlier judgment should have been applied. The review petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Marina Enterprises, filed a review petition against an order dated September 7, 2020, passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 12344/2020. The original petition was dismissed by the Court based on the provisions of Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates pre-deposits for filing appeals. The petitioner argued that the Court failed to consider the Supreme Court's decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others V/s. P. Laxmi Devi, and that they were unable to deposit the required amount to avail the appeal remedy. The respondents opposed the review, citing a later Supreme Court judgment in Chandra Shekhar Jha V/s. Union of India and Another, which held that Section 129-E is not discretionary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's writ petition by applying Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962, without considering the Supreme Court's decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others V/s. P. Laxmi Devi? 2. Whether Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962, is discretionary, allowing for a waiver or reduction of the pre-deposit amount? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner contended that the High Court's order was erroneous as it did not consider the Supreme Court's ruling in P. Laxmi Devi, which they believed supported their inability to deposit the pre-deposit amount for appeal. They argued that this inability prevented them from availing the appellate remedy. Respondents' contentions: The respondents opposed the review petition, arguing that the scope of review is limited. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Chandra Shekhar Jha V/s. Union of India and Another, which clearly held that the provisions of Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962, are not discretionary and that an appellant is bound by them.