2008 (5) TMI 28 - SC - Customs

Non release of consignments by Commissioner of Customs (Port) commissioner failed to comply with the directions issued by SC to release the goods - contempt of court - if there was a dispute regarding the amount of duty, he should have approached this Court for clarification demurrage charges for this period are not justified as the goods were retained by the department in spite of orders passed by this Court to release the goods - Commissioner of Customs (Port), is directed to pay cost

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of consignments on furnishing bond and bank guarantee.
2. Failure to comply with court orders by the Commissioner of Customs.
3. Disputed duty amount and release of consignments.
4. Payment of demurrage charges and responsibility for the same.
5. Contempt of Court proceedings against the Commissioner of Customs.
6. Refund of demurrage charges and imposition of personal cost on the Commissioner.

Analysis:

1. The Supreme Court directed the release of four consignments to the respondent-assessee upon furnishing a bond supported by a bank guarantee for the disputed duty, with the bank guarantee to be maintained during the appeal. The department was also instructed to release the goods on payment of demurrage under protest.

2. Despite the court's orders, the Commissioner of Customs did not release the consignments even after the assessee furnished the required bond and bank guarantee. This led to the filing of Interlocutory Applications seeking directions for the release of the consignments.

3. The Commissioner provided an explanation stating the total disputed duty amount, but the assessee contested a lower amount for the specific consignments in question. The goods were eventually released after discrepancies were addressed, but the delay and non-compliance with court orders were criticized.

4. Demurrage charges were imposed on the assessee for the period the goods were withheld by the department, despite court orders for release. The responsibility for these charges was discussed, and it was decided that charges paid by the assessee would be refunded, holding the department accountable.

5. Due to the Commissioner's failure to comply with court directions, a notice was issued for Contempt of Court proceedings. The Commissioner's explanation was found unsatisfactory, and an unqualified apology was accepted, subject to payment of personal costs imposed as a penalty.

6. The Interlocutory Applications were disposed of with directions for refunding demurrage charges to the assessee and the imposition of personal costs on the Commissioner, to be recovered from his salary and paid to the assessee, concluding the legal proceedings on the matter.