2018 (6) TMI 1698 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of imported consignments - non-compliance with the order of the Tribunal - HELD THAT - The matter is adjourned 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 15/05/2016 14/06/2018 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 Custom 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. Perhaps, the Respondent is not aware of these rules and provisions and hence he entered into a direct communication with the Member which is impermissible. The copy of this order is being marked to Chief Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata for his information.

Summary

Issues involved:
Non-compliance of tribunal order for provisional release of imported consignments, delay in releasing goods, potential economic security concerns, storage of imported goods under Customs Act, heavy port demurrage and container detention charges, deterioration of market value of imported goods, appeal filing process, request for no conditionality in warehousing, communication protocol with the tribunal.

Issue 1: Non-compliance of tribunal order for provisional release of imported consignments
The Tribunal noted that despite its order dated 15/05/2018 directing the Commissioner to grant provisional release of imported consignments, the goods had not been released. The matter was brought up before the Tribunal on 14/06/2018 due to the non-compliance by the Respondent. The Advocate representing the Appellant highlighted the delay in releasing the goods despite the Tribunal's order, leading to heavy port demurrage and container detention charges.

Issue 2: Potential economic security concerns
The Respondent, through a letter, mentioned that the case was under investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) due to potential national economic security-related considerations. The DRI's views were received, and a decision was made to file an appeal against the Tribunal's order, with an application for Stay and Appeal in the Calcutta High Court. This aspect raised concerns about the impact of the case on national economic security.

Issue 3: Storage of imported goods under Customs Act
The Appellant's Advocate argued that the Respondent had not permitted the storage of imported goods under Section 49 of the Customs Act, which allows for the storage of imported goods in a warehouse pending clearance. This failure to permit storage was causing additional demurrage and container detention charges, further exacerbated by the deteriorating market value of the imported goods over time.

Issue 4: Appeal filing process
The Appellant's Advocate expressed concerns regarding the Respondent's delay in releasing the goods under the pretext of filing an appeal before the Calcutta High Court. The Advocate emphasized the irreparable demurrage being incurred by the Appellant due to the delay in releasing the consignments. The Tribunal adjourned the matter to allow the Revenue to file an appeal against the Tribunal's orders and obtain a stay from their operation.

Issue 5: Request for no conditionality in warehousing
The Appellant's Advocate requested that the Tribunal order the Respondent to allow the deposit of the imported consignment under Section 49 of the Customs Act immediately, without attaching any unreasonable conditions for warehousing. There was an apprehension that the Respondent might impose unwarranted conditions for warehousing, causing further delays and financial burden on the Appellant.

Issue 6: Communication protocol with the tribunal
The Tribunal highlighted the correct procedure for submissions against its orders, emphasizing that any appeal should be made through the proper channels and not by directly addressing a letter to a Member of the Bench. The Respondent's direct communication with a Member was deemed impermissible, although the Tribunal did not take a serious view of it this time. The Respondent was advised to refrain from such direct communications in the future.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the various issues involved, including non-compliance of tribunal orders, economic security concerns, storage of imported goods, appeal filing procedures, conditions for warehousing, and communication protocols with the tribunal. The Tribunal's decision to adjourn the matter, direct the Revenue to file an appeal, and ensure compliance with the Customs Act provisions reflects a comprehensive approach to resolving the issues raised by the parties involved in the case.