2018 (6) TMI 1689 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction - Provisional release of imported goods - whether the appeal against the Order is being filed by the respondent in Kolkata, High Court, when the matter relates to the valuation of goods among the other issues under the Customs Act? - HELD THAT - After going through the various orders and request made by the respondent Commissioner, we adjourn the matter for 15 days from today so as to enable the Revenue to file appeal against the orders of this Tribunal. By that time it is expected that respondent will file the appeal against the Orders dated 15-5-2016 14-6-2018 and obtained a stay from its operation. Further, the Commissioner is also directed to follow the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Customs Act in letter and spirit so as not to impose any conditionality which is unwarranted under the Customs Act. As per the CESTAT procedures and rules, any submission against the Order passed by it is to be laid before the Bench by filing Affidavit/Miscellaneous Application through Registry for its consideration. It is absolutely not permitted by any parties to appeal to directly address any letter to the Member of the Bench.

Issues: Non-compliance of tribunal order for provisional release of imported consignments, delay in release causing financial losses, appeal filing by respondent, adherence to Customs Act provisions, communication protocol violation.

In the present matter, the issue revolved around the non-compliance of the tribunal order for the provisional release of imported consignments by the respondent, despite the order dated 15-5-2018. The appellant's advocate highlighted that the delay in releasing the goods was intentional to hinder the provisional release process. Additionally, it was pointed out that the nature of the imported goods was such that their market value was deteriorating due to the delay in release, leading to heavy port demurrage and container detention charges. The advocate also referenced a previous order by the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata directing the respondent to permit the storage of imported goods under Section 49 of the Customs Act, which had not been followed in this case.

Moreover, the respondent's decision to file an appeal against the tribunal order was based on the views received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kolkata, citing national economic security considerations. The appellant's advocate emphasized the urgency of allowing the deposit of the imported consignment under Section 49 of the Customs Act to prevent incurring heavy container detention charges. Concerns were raised regarding the respondent's obstinate approach in holding up the consignments, causing irreparable demurrage to the appellant. The advocate requested that the respondent be held personally liable for the damages caused by the delay.

Furthermore, the advocate expressed apprehension that the respondent might impose unreasonable conditions for warehousing under Section 39, despite the tribunal's direction. The tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the respondent's letter, adjourned the matter to allow the Revenue to file an appeal against the tribunal orders. It was directed that the respondent must follow the provisions of Section 49 of the Customs Act without imposing unwarranted conditions. Additionally, the tribunal addressed a communication protocol violation, advising the respondent Commissioner against directly addressing any communication to the Member of the tribunal in response to orders passed by it.

In conclusion, the tribunal emphasized the adherence to CESTAT procedures and rules, highlighting that any submission against its order should be made through the proper channels. The order was marked to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata for information, and copies were provided to both parties for compliance.

← Previous Next →