2015 (8) TMI 1295 - HC - Customs

Seizure of gold - the Petitioner/Power of Attorney of the Principal approached the officer of Customs in Airport for the execution of the order showing his willingness to pay the fine and penalty. However, the said order was not executed. Being aggrieved by the inaction, though a letter was given to the Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai dated 15.07.2015, there is no response. Hence, the Petitioner is before this Court. Admittedly, as against the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, the Department moved the Revisional Authority by filing revisions and the Revisional Authority also issued notice to the Petitioners, fixing the date of hearing under Section 129 (DD) of the Customs Act, 1962. Petitioners are directed to appear and place all their submissions so as to substantiate their case and on upon hearing them, the Revisional Authority is directed to dispose of the revisions, after following the due process of law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-execution of orders regarding re-shipment of gold by customs authorities.
2. Compliance with directions of the Appellate Authority.
3. Pending Revision filed by the Department against the orders of the Appellate Authority.
4. Amendments in Notification No.12/2012 and Rule 6 of the Baggage Rules, 1998.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners in two separate cases had gold seized and were ordered re-shipment to the country of origin with fines and penalties. Despite appeals and orders for reduction in fines, the customs authorities did not execute the orders, leading to grievances and subsequent legal action before the High Court.

2. The petitioners argued that as per a Supreme Court ruling and a circular by CBEC, it is the duty of the Department to comply with directions of the Appellate Authority. They sought appropriate directions for the execution of the orders in their favor.

3. The Respondents, represented by the standing counsel, stated that the Department had filed a Revision and a stay petition against the Appellate Authority's orders. The Revisional Authority had issued notices for the petitioners to present their case, indicating a pending process for further review and decision.

4. After hearing both sides, the Court acknowledged the Revision filed by the Department and directed the petitioners to appear before the Revisional Authority to present their submissions. The Revisional Authority was instructed to dispose of the revisions within eight weeks, ensuring due process is followed.

5. The Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with the above directions, emphasizing compliance with the Revisional process and the need for timely resolution. No costs were awarded, and the related Miscellaneous Petitions were closed accordingly.