Back
1993 Supreme(Mad) 786
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOMASUNDARAM
Tata Tea Limited - Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1335 of 1993
Decided On : 26 November 1993
When the right of appeal is reserved, no expression on merits should be made, as it would render the remedy of an appeal an empty formality.
Headnote:
Appeal - Customs Law - The court admitted and heard the appeal for final disposal, directing the Collector of Customs to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with the law, without referring to any findings or observations made by the learned Single Judge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an endorsement and clear goods for reimportation free from duty. The Single Judge expressed opinions on the merits of the contentions, despite the right of appeal being reserved.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Collector of Customs to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with the law, without considering the Single Judge's findings or observations.
Issues: The issue was whether the Single Judge should have expressed opinions on the merits of the contentions when the right of appeal was reserved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when the right of appeal is reserved, no expression on merits should be made, as availing of the remedy of an appeal would be an empty formality.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the direction for the Collector of Customs to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with the law, without referring to any findings or observations made by the learned Single Judge.
K.A. SWAMI, C.J
At the stage of admission, the respondents have been served. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the respondents is also present. As the appeal involves a very short question, in the light of the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.
2. It may be pointed out here that in the Writ Petition, the petitioner/appellant sought for quashing the endorsement dated 14-8-1993 on the letter of same date of the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to clear the goods sought to be reimported, covered under the Bill of Entry No. 24212/12-7-1993, free from duty under Notification No. 13/81 dated 9-2-1981 read with the orders dated June 1992 and 6-8-1993.
3. During the course of the hearing of the petition, it had been pointed out before the learned Single Judge, that the aforesaid endorsement was appealable and the petitioner/appellant had also preferred on appeal before the Collector of Customs. Learned Single Judge has also reserved the right of appeal. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge has expressed on the merits of the contentions urged by the petitioner/appellant about the validity of the endorsement. When there is a right of appeal provided and that has been reserved by the learned Single Judge, no expression on merits should have been made. In such an event, availing of the remedy of an appeal would be an empty formality because the Collector of Customs is bound by the finding recorded by this Court. Under these circumstances, we have heard both sides.
4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that it would be sufficient if it is observed by this Court that the finding recorded and the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge shall not be relied upon by the Collector of Customs, while deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner/appellant. Learned Counsel for the respondents also submits that the respondents cannot have any objection for disposing of the appeal without reference to the aforesaid observations made by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in the following terms.The Appellate Authority viz. the Collector of Customs, Appeals, shall decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, without referring to any of the findings recorded or the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 8-10-1993 passed in W.P. No. 16991 of 1993. There shall be no order as to costs.
