1983 (12) TMI 316 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to stay the redemption fine.
2. Compliance with the Tribunal's order for furnishing a bank guarantee.
3. Alleged contempt and disobedience of the Tribunal's order by the Assistant Collector of Customs.
4. Justifications for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order.
5. Consequences and actions against the respondent for disobedience.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to stay the redemption fine

The applicants contended that the Tribunal had the authority to stay the order requiring them to pay a fine of Rs. 13 lakhs for the release of goods, citing a Supreme Court precedent. The respondent argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 129-E of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that even though the Act did not explicitly confer the power to stay the redemption fine, the grant of stay was incidental and ancillary to its appellate power. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the stay application on the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for the sum of Rs. 13 lakhs within four weeks.

Issue 2: Compliance with the Tribunal's order for furnishing a bank guarantee

The applicants received the order on 4-10-1983 and furnished the bank guarantee on 31-10-1983, which the respondents declined to accept due to the expiry of the stipulated four-week period. The applicants sought an extension, which the Tribunal granted until 14-11-1983. Despite this, the Assistant Collector of Customs refused to release the goods, citing the lack of a specific direction in the original order.

Issue 3: Alleged contempt and disobedience of the Tribunal's order by the Assistant Collector of Customs

The applicants alleged that the Assistant Collector of Customs, Miss M. Michael, had deliberately disobeyed the Tribunal's order by refusing to accept the bank guarantee and release the goods. The Assistant Collector contended that her actions were based on a bona fide understanding of the legal position and the withdrawal of permission by the Assistant Drug Controller. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Collector had not obeyed the order dated 30-9-1983, establishing disobedience.

Issue 4: Justifications for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order

The Assistant Collector justified her non-compliance by citing a letter from the Assistant Drug Controller dated 16-9-1983, which withdrew permission for the release of the goods. She argued that the relevant statutory provisions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act did not permit the release of the goods without this permission. The Tribunal rejected these justifications, stating that the Assistant Collector should have sought a modification of the order if there were intervening circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that a party to an order must obey it unless it is modified or set aside by a superior authority.

Issue 5: Consequences and actions against the respondent for disobedience

The Tribunal considered initiating contempt proceedings but decided against it, taking into account the Assistant Collector's recent entry into the department and possible lack of experience. Instead, the Tribunal directed her to comply with the order within two days and report compliance. The Tribunal underscored the importance of respecting and complying with judicial orders to maintain the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial system.

Conclusion

The Tribunal concluded that the Assistant Collector had disobeyed its order without valid justification and directed immediate compliance. The judgment reinforced the principle that judicial orders must be obeyed and emphasized the responsibility of public officials to act within the bounds of the law.