ssp 1 WP 884 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.884 OF 2010 Spaj Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. .....Petitioners versus Union of India and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.R.D.Talreja, for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Rao with Ms.S.I.Shah, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 19 th JULY, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07-01-2010 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not produced necessary documents before the appellate authority. It is also observed that even though opportunities were granted for personal hearing, the petitioners/appellants have taken time on one ground or the other. There is also passing observations to the effect that the appellants has also not deposited payment of duty along with interest against non-utilized imports. On the aforesaid grounds, appeal of the petitioner is dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted ssp 2 WP 884 of 2010 that appeal was required to be examined on merits and infact on every occasion, the appellants were present before the appellate authority, but the matter was adjourned from time to time. Whether the petitioner was co-operating with the appellate authority is not required to be decided at this stage. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners may be given one last chance to get his appeal adjudicated on merits, we remand the matter back to the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, to decide the appeal of the petitioners de novo and on the condition that the petitioners deposit in all `12,00,000/-, which includes the duty amount of about `7,24,000/-, as pointed out by the Department. In our view, it will not be appropriate at this stage to compel the petitioner to pay the penalty amount without their appeal being adjudicated on its own merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes before the Court that the petitioners will remain present with all necessary documents and will not try to delay the proceedings before the appellate authority. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is sent back to the appellate authority to decide the same on its own merits, including the question about charging of penalty in accordance with law. 3. The petitioners are directed to deposit an amount of `12,00,000/- in all before the D.E.E.C., within a period of four weeks from ssp 3 WP 884 of 2010 today. In case the said amount is not deposited, the aforesaid order shall have no effect and the proceedings shall be terminated on that ground. If the amount is so deposited, the appellate authority shall rehear the appeal and decide all the questions in accordance with law. The petitioners are also directed to cooperate with the hearing and may not ask for any adjournment from the appellate authority and the appellate authority may decide the appeal expeditiously within a period of three months from depositing the aforesaid amount by the petitioners. Deposit of proof in this respect, may be placed on record before the appellate authority. It is clarified that the deposit of the said amount will be subject to the final outcome in the proceedings before the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority is accordingly set aside by remanding the matter back to the appellate authority. 4. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )