1. Relief Sought by Petitioners (Paras 1–2)

The Petitioners sought:

1. Waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, for admitting their appeal.
2. Restoration of their appeal dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition.

2. Petitioners’ Argument: Exceptional Circumstances (Para 3–4)

• Counsel for the Petitioners argued that penalties imposed for gold without foreign markings were unjustified as most of the gold lacked such markings.
• Cited Pioneer Corporation v. Union of India and Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed v. Commissioner Appeals Customs and Central Excise to justify waiver of pre-deposit under Article 226.

3. Court's Observations: Merits Irrelevant (Para 5)

• The Court noted that the Petitioners’ arguments on the merits did not substantiate a claim for penalty being without jurisdiction.
• The focus was restricted to the statutory mandate of pre-deposit under Section 129E.

4. Statutory Mandate of Pre-Deposit (Para 6)

• Relying on Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Ambuj A Kasliwal, the Court highlighted the Supreme Court's decision that statutory pre-deposit requirements cannot be overridden under Article 226.

5. Precedent on Pre-Deposit Waiver (Para 7)

• The Bombay High Court in Manjit Singh v. Union of India declined a similar relief, reinforcing the mandatory nature of Section 129E compliance.

6. Petitioners' Previous Writ Petition (Para 9)

• Petitioners previously filed a writ (Writ Petition No. 2884/2017) and were instructed to comply with pre-deposit requirements.
• The current petition attempts to bypass compliance, which the Court found unacceptable.

7. Delhi High Court Decisions Distinguished (Para 10)

• The decisions cited by the Petitioners (e.g., Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed) were distinguished as those dealt with exceptional cases of indigent petitioners, unlike the present case involving gold and diamond traders.

8. Court’s Conclusion and Dismissal (Paras 11–12)

• The Court found no rare or deserving circumstances to justify a waiver of pre-deposit.
• Petition dismissed without costs.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Customs Act, 1962

   • Section 129E: Mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing appeals.

2. Constitution of India

   • Article 226: Extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts for issuing writs.

Ratio Decidendi:

The statutory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, cannot be waived by the High Court under Article 226 unless exceptional, rare, and deserving circumstances are demonstrated. The exercise of discretion cannot contravene statutory mandates, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Ambuj A Kasliwal.

Subjects:

Customs Law, Constitutional Law, Judicial Review under Article 226

Pre-deposit, Writ Petition, Article 226, Section 129E, Customs Act, Statutory Mandate, Extraordinary Jurisdiction, Bombay High Court