Customs apathy – High Court frowns
Is the Commissioner’s job over once the case is entrusted to a Counsel?
For eight long years, the Customs Commissioner and the DRI did not bother to be represented in the High Court and the moment the High Court passed an ex parte order, the department woke up and wanted the ex parte order quashed. The High Court was not impressed and came down rather heavily on the department. Most often, the department does not show any interest in pursuing litigation in the High Courts. Once they hand over the case to the ASG, the Commissioner believes his role is over and the poor ASG does not get any assistance from the department.
It seems in Australia, whenever a Revenue case is argued in a High Court, the entire top brass of the Revenue department is present in the Court. Back home when a Customs or Central Excise case is before a High Court, not even an inspector is present in the court. It is time Board issues instructions that whenever Revenue cases are before the High Courts, the Commissioner should be personally present in the Court. After all it is his case and he should be interested in it. May be then quality of defence in the High Courts would improve.
In the case we are reporting today, for eight long years, the Commissioner refused to be represented in Court showing utter disregard and contempt for the judiciary.
The High Court observed,
++ Time has come to express anguish at the manner in which Court proceedings are being viewed by litigants, where indulgence shown by the Court is mistaken by the litigant to be either a vested right afforded to him by the law, or worse still the laxity of the Court, leading to a casual and cavalier approach to Court cases.
++ Such approach of the litigant if not dealt with firmly may in time lead to the breakdown of the judicial system itself.
++ Merely because indulgence is extended by the Court toward the party, as was extended time and again in this case, the party cannot be presumptuous enough to assume that it has attained a vested right for being served afresh for each and every date of hearing.
++ A party in order to seek relief from the Court must satisfy the Court that it defaulted in appearance because of circumstances beyond its control or, at any rate, on account of overwhelming difficulties.
++ Sleeping over the matter by the party should not be countenanced lightly.
++ Likewise, cryptic and off the cuff explanations for non-attendance deserve outright rejection.
++ Government Departments, who take the Courts for granted, should not be lightly let off for their dereliction of duties.
++ A drastic alteration in the mind set of individuals seeking the assistance of the Court as also corporate bodies and Government agencies unless brought about is bound to lead to utter chaos in the judicial functioning.
++ Due diligence must take the place of negligence which pervades throughout, if Courts are to deliver to the litigant his rights.
++ Justice should not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of dereliction, default, negligence, indifference and the like.
++ The defendants were sleeping uninterruptedly throughout and have now arisen from their slumber to claim that the same should not be executed, without even so much as giving a semblance of an explanation.
As the High Court so rightly observed, Justice should not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of dereliction, default, negligence, indifference.
In this particular case, the Revenue ended up paying costs by going to the High Court. Is there any accountability in the department? Why should the department go out of its way to prove its incompetence?
Please see our Breaking News for more details of the important case.