9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Implementation of Tribunal's Order, Contempt Proceedings, Compliance with Tribunal's Directions
In this case, the applicants filed Miscellaneous Applications to bring to the Tribunal's attention that the Commissioner had not implemented the Tribunal's Order to release goods belonging to small importers, despite a clear direction in the Tribunal's previous Order. The applicants sought Contempt Proceedings against the Customs Officers responsible for the non-compliance and requested directions under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Advocate for the applicants argued that the Tribunal had disposed of all appeals in favor of the importers and directed the Customs Authorities to release the goods without delay. The Advocate highlighted the excessive interference by the D.R.I. authorities and Customs Authorities in withholding the goods, even though the importers had paid the fines and penalties as ordered by the adjudicating authority. The Advocate urged the initiation of Contempt Proceedings against the responsible Customs Officers. On the other hand, the Revenue's Advocate stated that the Department had proposed filing a Civil Appeal against the Tribunal's Order in all cases. The Advocate presented a letter indicating the Department's decision not to release the goods pending the appeal process. However, it was acknowledged that there was no stay from the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's Order. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, noted the interference by the D.R.I. authorities and Customs Authorities in not releasing the goods to small importers despite payment of fines and penalties. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that C.E.G.A.T.'s Orders must be implemented in the absence of a stay. The Tribunal cited relevant cases where non-compliance led to Contempt Proceedings. Therefore, utilizing its powers under Rule 41 of the C.E.G.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to release the goods within three days and report compliance promptly. Failure to comply would result in the initiation of Contempt Proceedings against the Commissioner for deliberate defiance of the Tribunal's Order. In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered the immediate release of the goods and emphasized the importance of compliance with its directives. The Order was to be served to both parties for immediate action.
|
