2015 (7) TMI 879 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Provisional release of gold - Held that - Single Judge passed an interim order directing that the petitioner be permitted to release of the gold on executing a simple bond. - such an interim could not have been passed, especially when there was no lack of jurisdiction in passing the order and the order has not been prima facie perverse. We are, thus, of the view that sufficient ground has been made out to set aside the order passed by the Single Judge. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interim order permitting release of gold on executing a simple bond under Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The writ appeal was filed against an interim order passed by a Single Judge in response to a writ petition challenging an order of the Commissioner of Customs Preventive related to the release of gold ornaments. The Commissioner's order required the petitioner to execute a bond of Rs. 3 crores and furnish security of Rs. 60 lakhs for the provisional release of the gold. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's order was within the statutory power under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and that allowing release on a simple bond would frustrate the purpose as the writ petition was still pending for consideration. The appellant contended that the interim order virtually granted relief that should be available only at the final disposal of the writ petition.

The High Court, comprising Ashok Bhushan, Ag. C.J., and A.M. Shaffique, J., found that the interim order permitting release on a simple bond was not justified since there was no lack of jurisdiction in the Commissioner's order, and the order was not prima facie perverse. The Court held that there were sufficient grounds to set aside the Single Judge's order dated 10-12-2014. It was clarified that the decision on the merits of the case should be left to the Single Judge considering the writ petition, and the High Court did not express any opinion on the case's merits. The appellant's concern about the acceptance of the simple bond was noted, and it was acknowledged that the order contemplated a simple bond.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the interim order and emphasizing that the decision on the case's merits should be determined by the Single Judge. The High Court's ruling highlighted the importance of upholding statutory powers and ensuring that interim orders do not undermine the purpose of pending legal proceedings.