( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed along with LA. 1 for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. The appeal and LA. 1 are taken up together for disposal. ( 2 ) THE judgment under appeal was delivered on 11th March, 1998. Application for obtaining the certified copy was filed on 12th of March, 1998. The same was ready on 27th March, 1998 and the delivery was taken on the same date. The last date for filing the appeal fell during the period the High Court was closed for its summer vacation. The High Court reopened on 25th May, 1998. The appeal could be filed on the reopening day of the Court. The appeal was filed on the next day. e. , second day of reopening of the High Court. e. , on 26-5-1998. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the delay may be condoned as the mistake was inadvertent. We find force in his submission and condone the delay in filing the appeal. ( 3 ) WE have heard the Counsel for the appellant on merits. ( 4 ) APPELLANT had imported high pressure PTFE (Teflon) stainless steel wire braided hose from sweden and the material was received at Madras port. The goods were kept in the warehouse of the respondent on 11-8-1986. Appellant applied for extension of time to get the goods cleared which was granted. Under the extended period he was required to clear the goods up to August, 1998. As he failed to remove the goods, the same were put in tender-cum-auction notice. Appellant filed writ petition No. 13616/88 against the action of the respondents. The said writ petition was dismissed on 31st January, 1991 as it was found that the appellant was not in a position to salvage the goods that were still lying in the warehouse. ( 5 ) APPELLANT in the meanwhile moved the application for payment in instalments. It appears that no payment at all has been made. Now this petition has been filed on the ground that the appellant relinquished the title in the goods on 12-2-1991 and no order under Section 23 (2) of the Customs Act having been passed, he was not liable to pay the duty on the goods. It appears that no payment at all has been made. Now this petition has been filed on the ground that the appellant relinquished the title in the goods on 12-2-1991 and no order under Section 23 (2) of the Customs Act having been passed, he was not liable to pay the duty on the goods. ( 6 ) LEARNED Single Judge held that once the steps had been taken to auction the goods, the question of relinquishment of the goods did not arise; that the appellant was not entitled to the remission of duty under Section 23 (2) of the Customs Act. We entirely agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge and find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.