2015 (11) TMI 1152 - AT - Customs

Contempt proceedings - Non adherence to court s order - Non release of goods inspite of court s order - Held that - Respondent has already filed an appeal along with stay petition before the Hon ble High Court on 21st August 2015 immediately after receiving the certified copy of the Tribunal s order on 13th August 2015. Since the stay petition along with the appeal is pending before the Hon ble Bombay High Court, insisting on release of the goods at this juncture will make the stay petition infructuous. In my view, the applicant may await the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court. I also note that the applicant has also filed a writ petition for the release of the goods which is also scheduled to come up on 21st September 2015. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Non-compliance with Tribunal's order for release of goods, Contempt proceedings, Tribunal's power to review its own order, Appeal filed before High Court, Stay petition, Delay in pronouncing judgment, Communication of Tribunal's order, Provisions of Section 130, Writ petition for release of goods.

Analysis:
The case involved an application filed by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai seeking contempt proceedings against the respondent for not releasing goods as directed by the Tribunal's order dated 26.6.2015. The Tribunal had directed the customs authority to release the goods within seven days from the receipt of the order. The appellant had submitted a letter enclosing a copy of the order to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 2.7.2015, but the goods were not released, leading to the current application.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal lacked the power to review its own order and could not extend the date of implementation. The counsel also mentioned filing a writ petition in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, scheduled for 21st September 2015. On the other hand, the Additional Commissioner from the Custom House explained the timeline of events, including the delay in receiving the certified copy of the Tribunal's order and the subsequent decision to file an appeal and stay application before the High Court.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent had filed an appeal along with a stay petition before the Hon'ble High Court immediately after receiving the certified copy of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal opined that insisting on the release of goods at that point would render the stay petition infructuous. Therefore, the Tribunal advised the appellant to await the decision of the High Court, considering the pending appeal and stay petition. The Tribunal also mentioned the writ petition filed by the appellant for the release of goods, scheduled for a later date.

The Tribunal refrained from delving into issues such as the delay in pronouncing the judgment, communication of the Tribunal's order, provisions of Section 130, or the absence of specific prayers for the release of goods within seven days. The Tribunal clarified that its decision did not amount to a review of its order but was related to implementation while the matter was before the High Court. Ultimately, the application filed by the appellant was disposed of in the mentioned terms, with an order to be issued accordingly.