2016 (8) TMI 1126 - HC - Customs

Maintainability - pendency of appeal for release of seized goods - after repeated orders of the Court, the authority passed speaking order in the matter - goods unfit for human consumption - when the order so passed could be questioned in the regular proceedings, is writ petition maintainable, keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner has unnecessarily been harassed and by the time the matter would be decided by the Tribunal, the petitioner may suffer further injury and losses? - Held that - So far the requirement of expeditious proceeding by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is concerned, there is no reason to doubt that upon the petitioner making a proper request for expeditious proceeding while pointing out the reasons, the Tribunal would not consider the same in accordance with law. Petitioner allowed to take recourse to appropriate remedy in accordance with law against the order passed by the authority concerned - all the submissions sought to be made by the petitioner, including those related with unnecessary delay on the part of the authority in passing the order, are left open to be raised by the petitioner in accordance with law with the Tribunal concerned - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Delay in deciding application for release of seized goods; Authority's failure to pass a speaking order; Petitioner's claim of harassment and potential losses; Availability of regular remedy; Requirement of expeditious proceedings by the Tribunal.

Delay in deciding application for release of seized goods:
The petitioner's grievance was that their application for the release of seized goods, made on 07.04.2016, had not been decided by the authority concerned. Despite repeated orders from the Court, the authority failed to pass a speaking order on the matter. The Court granted time to the Commissioner of Customs to decide the application and even provided a deadline for the same. Only after continuous orders from the Court did the authority finally pass a speaking order on 05.08.2016, which was forwarded on 08.08.2016.

Authority's failure to pass a speaking order:
The Court found it confounding that the authority did not pass a speaking order on the petitioner's application despite multiple opportunities and orders from the Court. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the delay caused by the respondents in deciding the application and noted that the authority only acted after repeated orders from the Court. However, the Court acknowledged that the order passed by the authority could be challenged in regular proceedings and decided not to continue with the writ petition further.

Petitioner's claim of harassment and potential losses; Availability of regular remedy:
The petitioner claimed that they had been unnecessarily harassed by the delay in deciding their application and expressed concerns about suffering further injury and losses if the matter went to the Tribunal. The Court recognized that while the delay was not appreciated, the petitioner had a regular remedy available to challenge the order passed by the authority concerned. The Court advised the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy in accordance with the law against the order.

Requirement of expeditious proceedings by the Tribunal:
The Court emphasized the need for expeditious proceedings by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. It assured the petitioner that upon making a proper request for expeditious proceedings and pointing out the reasons, the Tribunal would consider the same in accordance with the law. The Court left it open for the petitioner to raise all submissions related to unnecessary delays with the Tribunal in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court treated the petition as infructuous and disposed of it with no costs, advising the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedy against the order passed by the authority concerned.