9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 1175 - AT - CustomsPermission to re-export of the goods of the appellant - appellant already submitted the Bank Guarantee but the Respondent failed to allow export of the goods even after five months have passed - HELD THAT - There are no reason with the Customs Authority to defy both the Final Order dated 12 September 2019 and Miscellaneous Order dated 21 June 2021 granting permission to appellant to re-export the impugned gold. The final order as well as miscellaneous order of this Tribunal, as mentioned above, have not been complied with by the department despite the time bound directions and despite that their interest has duly been taken care of. This act of department is highly unacceptable and unreasonable/ unjustified too - Clearly, it is a case of the officers illegally holding on to the goods of the appellant for over two years after the Final Order of 12.09.2019 as there is no provision in the Customs Act or Rules or Regulations under which the officers could have held on to the goods of the appellant which were not confiscated at all. The Respondent Principal Commissioner of Customs, NOIDA and Commissioner Customs (Exports), IGI Airport, New Delhi are directed to strictly comply with the orders passed and to allow re-export of the goods of the appellant within 10 days and report compliance in writing on 29 November 2021 - application disposed off.
Issues:
Implementation of order dated 21 June, 2021 for re-export of goods by M/s Mahesh & Co. Pte Ltd. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD, delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial), and Hon'ble Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical), addresses the implementation of an order dated 21 June, 2021, for the re-export of goods by M/s Mahesh & Co. Pte Ltd. The appellant had submitted a Bank Guarantee as per the miscellaneous order, but the Department failed to allow the export even after five months. The Departmental Representative opposed the application citing the pendency of their appeal against the final order dated 12 September, 2019. The Tribunal noted that the final order had set aside penalties under various sections and directed the appellant to submit a bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lakhs to allow re-export of jewellery. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department should comply with the orders, as the final and miscellaneous orders had not been adhered to despite time-bound directions. The Tribunal directed the Customs authorities to strictly comply with the orders and allow re-export within 10 days, reporting compliance by 29 November 2021. The Tribunal highlighted that the final order dated 12 September 2019 had not been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, and the Customs authority had a specific timeframe to allow the re-export of jewellery articles. The Tribunal passed an order on 21 June 2021, directing the submission of a Bank Guarantee by the appellant and allowing export within 10 days of its submission. The Tribunal observed that the Department's actions of not complying with the final and miscellaneous orders were unjustified and unacceptable. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that holding onto goods after confiscation has been set aside is illegal and without authority of law. The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's request for adjournment as an attempt to evade compliance with the orders. The Tribunal directed the Customs authorities to strictly adhere to the orders and allow re-export within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of following judicial orders without delay. In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of compliance with judicial orders and the illegality of holding onto goods after confiscation orders have been set aside. The Tribunal's directive to the Customs authorities to allow re-export within a specific timeframe aims to ensure the enforcement of the orders issued by the Tribunal. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal obligations of all parties involved and the necessity of timely and accurate implementation of judicial decisions.
|
