2024 (8) TMI 1287 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of Review Petition seeking review of an Order whereby this Court has disposed of Writ Petition on the ground that it would be appropriate for the Petitioners to take recourse to the remedy of an Appeal as provided under Section 129-A of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - It is well settled in law that a review can be entertained if a person discovers new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or on account of some error apparent on the fact of the record. In the present case it is not even the case of the Petitioners that they have discovered any new or important matter or evidence which was not within their knowledge or which could not be produced by them when the said Order dated 5th February 2024 was passed. Therefore this Review Petition is not maintainable on this ground. Further when the Order dated 5th February 2024 was passed the ground of limitation was not even taken in the Writ Petitions and therefore the Petitioners cannot contend that there is any error apparent on the face of the record on that account. For this reason also the present Review Petition is not maintainable - merely because the Petitioners have to deposit monies while filing an Appeal does not mean that the said Writ Petitions should be entertained by this Court. The present Review Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Review of an order disposing of writ petitions and the ground of limitation in issuance of Show Cause Notice.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Review Petition seeking review of an Order dated 5th February 2024, which disposed of two Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioners, directing them to pursue an appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of a Special Leave Petition with liberty to raise the issue of time-barred demand/limitation in a review petition before the High Court. The Petitioners sought to amend the Writ Petitions during the review proceedings to include the ground of limitation, which was not originally raised. The Petitioners argued that the Show Cause Notice issued by Respondent No. 2 was time-barred, as it was issued after 6 to 12 years from the relevant dates of the Shipping Bills. They relied on legal precedents emphasizing the need for actions to be taken within a reasonable period when no specific limitation is prescribed.

The Petitioners contended that the limitation issue is jurisdictional and can be raised at any stage, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments. They argued that the Review Petition should be entertained as the large amounts demanded would burden them if they are forced to pursue an appeal. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that since the limitation issue was not raised in the original Writ Petitions, the Review Petition is not maintainable. They also asserted that the limitation issue is a mixed question of law and fact more suitable for an appeal. The Court noted that a review can be entertained only on discovering new matter or evidence not previously known, which was not the case here. The ground of limitation was not raised in the original Writ Petitions, making it unsuitable for review. The Court emphasized that the issues raised, including the limitation aspect, can be addressed in the appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, to which the Petitioners were directed by the earlier order. Consequently, the Review Petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.