1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 36 OF 2010 King Rotors and Air Charter Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Commissioner of Customs (Import). ... Respondent. Darius Shroff, Senior Advocate with Hormaz Daruwalla, Mohit Arora and Nikhil Rodrigues i/b. Desai and Diwanji for the appellant. P.S.Jetly for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED : 21st July 2010. P.C. : Perused appeal papers. Heard Mr.Shroff, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Jetly, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 16th April, 2010 directing the appellant to make pre-deposit within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the order. Since the appellant was before this Court, 2 it did not comply with the said order of pre-deposit. With the result, substantive appeal came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 2nd July, 2010. Both these orders are subject matter of challenge in the present appeal at the instance of the appellant. 3. During the course of hearing, Mr.Shroff brought to our notice one document dated 1st June 2010 marked as Exh.U issued by the office of the Director General of Civil Aviation prescribing minimum requirements for grant of permit to operate non-scheduled air transport services. According to Mr.Shorff, the said requirements engrafted in Exh.U dated 1st June, 2010 have a retrospective effect. The Tribunal did not have the benefit of considering these minimum requirements mentioned in Exh.U since these are prescribed subsequent to the impugned order of pre-deposit. The appellant did not get opportunity to canvas its submissions based on these minimum requirements prescribed in Exh.U. It also appears that the Tribunal has also not considered the clarification given by the Director General of Civil Aviation in respect of other importers. 4. Having heard this matter for some time, a consensus is reached that both the impugned orders, without examining merits or demerits thereof, be set aside and the appeal be restored to the file of the Tribunal for consideration afresh on its own merits. 5. In the result, impugned orders are set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with direction to 3 consider the minimum requirements engrafted in Exh.U dated 1st June, 2010 with other contentions since all rival contentions on merits are kept open. If necessary, it would be open for the appellant to amend their appeal memo and/or application for pre-deposit to raise contention based on the minimum requirements laid down in Exh.U dated 1st June, 2010 by the Director General of Civil Aviation. We expect the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the appeal dispensing with pre-deposit, with expeditious despatch, at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by passing reasoned order. 6. Appeal is disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)