2012 (4) TMI 60 - HC - Customs

Redemption fine - Penalty - the respondent refuses to allow the petitioner to clear the goods on the ground that the imported goods comprises of hazardous electronic waste - The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite the appellate order, the respondent is not permitting clearance of the goods, although the petitioner is willing to pay the redemption fine and penalty - The only contention raised by the respondent is that against the appellate order, the respondent has already approached the Tribunal with an appeal and, therefore, the goods cannot be released until the appeal is disposed of - that is no ground to refuse the relief to the petitioner in accordance with the appellate order obtained by him insofar as there is no order staying the appellate order yet - Petition is disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Clearance of imported used computer parts refused due to hazardous waste classification.
2. Appeal to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed redemption of goods with fine and penalty.
3. Dispute over release of goods despite appellate order.
4. Writ petition filed seeking compliance with appellate order for goods release.
5. Interim order issued for goods release with a bond.
6. Respondent seeks to vacate interim order citing pending appeals.
7. Contention raised regarding pending appeal at Tribunal and Supreme Court.
8. Consideration of rival contentions regarding stay on appellate order.
9. Decision on whether to release goods based on lack of stay order.

Analysis:
The case involved a petitioner who imported used computer parts claiming residual market value but faced refusal for clearance by the respondent on grounds of hazardous waste classification. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal, permitting redemption of goods upon payment of fines and penalties. Despite this, the respondent did not release the goods, leading to a writ petition seeking compliance with the appellate order for goods release. An interim order was passed for goods release with a bond, which the respondent sought to vacate, citing pending appeals at the Tribunal and Supreme Court. The court considered the lack of a stay order on the appellate order and the fact that similar cases were decided against the Department by the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal. It was noted that the pendency of appeals did not automatically stay the release of goods. The court directed the respondent to implement the appellate order and release the imported goods within two weeks, subject to the orders in the pending appeal.