2014 (1) TMI 369 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - Import of palm oil - whether the impugned order is such which requires admission under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The goods are lying since 12.06.2013 and the Tribunal rendered its judgment on 26.09.2013. Against the decision of the learned Tribunal, the appellant, at the first instance, approached the writ jurisdiction of this Court on 19.11.2013. When the writ Court dismissed the said proceedings holding that appeal lies, the present appeal has been preferred. Be that as it may, the appellant approached the Tribunal in September 2013 waiting for three months. We think when the appellant could wait for a period of three months there is no difficulty for it to wait for another one month and so - findings of the learned Tribunal at the interlocutory stage will not be binding on the hearing of the appeal, because the approach of the final hearing of the appeal is completely different from that in case of an interlocutory application. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to decide the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order - Decided partly in favour of assesssee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against interlocutory order of Tribunal regarding detention of imported palm oil.
2. Questions of law regarding refusal to grant stay, classification of palm oil as food, and release of imported goods.
3. Consideration of High Court judgments, application of Customs Act, and substantial questions of law.

Issue 1: Appeal against Interlocutory Order:
The appellant sought to appeal the interlocutory order of the Tribunal dated 26.09.2013 regarding the detention of a considerable quantity of palm oil imported under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant applied for release of the goods pending the appeal before the Tribunal, which was refused by the Tribunal. The goods had been imported on 12.06.2013 and were stored in a warehouse. An adjudication order was passed, confirmed by the first appellate authority, and a second appeal was filed before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Questions of Law Raised:
The appeal sought admission based on three questions of law: refusal to grant stay of re-export order, classification of crude palm oil as food under the Food Safety and Standards Act, and the release of imported goods for further refining. The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not consider relevant High Court judgments and the nature of palm oil as not being classified as food, presenting a strong prima facie case. The revenue contended that the Tribunal followed its previous judgment and had the discretion to apply relevant decisions based on the circumstances of the case.

Issue 3: Consideration of High Court Judgments and Customs Act:
The High Court examined the impugned order under Section 130 of the Customs Act, which requires admission on substantial questions of law. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the goods had undergone testing, with the acid value exceeding 10%. The Tribunal expressed difficulties in allowing clearance based on amended regulations and the lack of machinery to control post-importation processing. The High Court noted that the Tribunal must exercise discretion in granting interim relief based on a balance of convenience and a prima facie case.

The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. The Tribunal's findings at the interlocutory stage were not binding for the final hearing, and the matter was directed to be decided within a month. The High Court instructed the Tribunal to consider and address the decisions of the Calcutta and Gujarat High Courts. Miscellaneous petitions in the appeal were to be closed.

This summary provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, covering the issues involved, the questions of law raised, the consideration of High Court judgments, and the application of the Customs Act in the context of the appeal against the interlocutory order regarding the detention of imported palm oil.