2014 (8) TMI 650 - HC - Customs

Duty demand - Coercive measure to compel demand - Held that - The Petitions can be disposed of with a direction that the Respondents shall keep the coercive measures in abeyance till 22nd August 2014 to enable the Petitioners to approach the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and seek appropriate interim relief in the pending proceedings. In the event any such applications are made and orders are passed therein, the parties to abide by the same. However, in the period we have specified, if no steps are taken by the Petitioners then it would be open for the Respondents to take such steps, as are permissible in law including pursuing the impugned communications - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition challenging coercive measures by Assistant Commissioner of Customs during subjudice proceedings.

Analysis:
The Petitioners approached the Bombay High Court alleging that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs initiated coercive measures demanding payment while the matter was subjudice. The Petitioners had filed stay applications and Appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to challenge demand notices and adjudication orders. However, the Tribunal decided the main Appeals before hearing the stay applications, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Petitioners claimed that before they could seek interim relief from the Supreme Court, the impugned demands were issued, threatening to block further imports and access to the goods clearance system.

The urgency of the matter prompted the Court to hear both sides promptly. The Respondent argued that the coercive measures were justified based on the CESTAT's order from April 3, 2014. The Respondent contended that since the Petitioners had not obtained interim protection from the Supreme Court despite having sufficient time to do so, the department's actions were warranted. The Respondent opposed granting unconditional stay or interim relief, suggesting that the Petitioners should face consequences if seeking to quash or halt the coercive proceedings.

After hearing the arguments, the Court directed the Respondents to suspend the coercive measures until August 22, 2014, allowing the Petitioners time to seek interim relief from the Supreme Court. The Court specified that if no action was taken by the Petitioners within the given period, the Respondents could proceed with permissible actions, including enforcing the impugned communications. The Court disposed of the Petitions with no costs awarded, emphasizing compliance with the orders issued.

The judgment concluded by instructing all parties involved to adhere to an authenticated copy of the order, ensuring clarity and enforcement of the Court's directives.