2015 (12) TMI 1606 - HC - Customs

Compliance with the order of the Settlement Commission - The petition seeks a mandamus to the respondent no.1 Union of India (UOI), respondent no.2 Commissioner of Customs (Import), respondent no.3 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and respondent no.4 Commissioner of Customs (Export) to release the Bank Guarantees/Bonds and cash payments in terms of the order dated 23rd September, 2015 of the Settlement Commission - The Settlement Commission had vide the aforesaid order directed for such release within 15 days of its order - Held that - The respondent no.1 UOI which has no role in the matter should not be seeking time for filing counter affidavit without any cause and application of mind - In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of by directing the respondents no.2 & 4 Customs Authorities to comply with the order of the Settlement Commission on or before 30th December, 2015 - The person occupying the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Import) is made personally responsible for compliance of the order.

Issues:
1. Compliance with the order of the Settlement Commission for release of Bank Guarantees/Bonds and cash payments.
2. Delay in complying with the Settlement Commission's order.
3. Role of Customs Authorities and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in the matter.
4. Responsibility of the Commissioner of Customs (Import) for ensuring compliance with the order.

Issue 1: Compliance with the order of the Settlement Commission for release of Bank Guarantees/Bonds and cash payments.
The petition sought a mandamus to various respondents, including the Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), and Commissioner of Customs (Export) for the release of Bank Guarantees/Bonds and cash payments as directed by the Settlement Commission's order dated 23rd September, 2015. The Settlement Commission had ordered the release within 15 days of its decision. The respondents admitted that the petitioner's representation was delayed, but the Settlement Commission's order had to be complied with. The petitioner urged immediate compliance due to the existing delay. The court directed Customs Authorities to comply with the Settlement Commission's order by 30th December, 2015, with the Commissioner of Customs (Import) personally responsible for ensuring compliance.

Issue 2: Delay in complying with the Settlement Commission's order.
The respondents acknowledged a delay in the petitioner's representation regarding the release of Bank Guarantees/Bonds and cash payments, with differing dates provided by the parties. Despite the delay, the court emphasized the necessity of prompt compliance with the Settlement Commission's order. The court noted that the delay in compliance was a concern and directed Customs Authorities to fulfill the order by a specified deadline, holding the Commissioner of Customs (Import) personally accountable for the execution.

Issue 3: Role of Customs Authorities and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in the matter.
The counsels representing Customs Authorities and DRI confirmed that no additional representation was needed to comply with the Settlement Commission's order. They admitted the obligation to adhere to the Commission's decision and requested a two-week extension for compliance. The court found the conduct of the Union of India, seeking time to file a counter affidavit, dilatory, stating that unnecessary delays without valid reasons were unwarranted. Consequently, the court directed Customs Authorities to fulfill the Settlement Commission's order by a specified date, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance.

Issue 4: Responsibility of the Commissioner of Customs (Import) for ensuring compliance with the order.
The court specifically held the person occupying the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Import) personally responsible for ensuring compliance with the Settlement Commission's order regarding the release of Bank Guarantees/Bonds and cash payments. By assigning personal responsibility to the Commissioner, the court aimed to ensure prompt and effective execution of the Commission's decision without further delays. No costs were imposed in the disposition of the petition, highlighting the court's focus on the timely and efficient resolution of the matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues addressed by the court, the parties involved, and the specific directives issued for compliance with the Settlement Commission's order.

← Previous Next →