2016 (6) TMI 657 - HC - Customs

Detention of imported Gold Jewelery - adjudicating authority had given an option of redemption to the petitioners for re-export subject to payment of fine and personal penalty. - Held that - in the instant case there is no proof to show that the revision petitions have been taken on file and no proof has been produced to show that notice has been ordered to the petitioner. That apart, the order of the Commissioner was passed on 30.06.2015 and the revisions are said to have been presented only on 16.02.2016/05.03.2016. In any event, as on date, the orders which have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) almost one year back has not been either set aside or modified. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent should comply with the direction subject to certain conditions. - Re-export to be allowed subject to conditions.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to release detained goods for re-export.
2. Dispute over redemption fine and personal penalty.
3. Filing of revisions by the Department.
4. Compliance with the order passed by the Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought a direction to release goods detained after an order allowing redemption for re-export with fines and penalties. The Appellate Authority partially reduced the penalties, but the Department filed revisions challenging this. The Department argued against redemption for re-export, citing previous court decisions.

2. The Department submitted that revisions were filed with the Central Government, seeking to prevent redemption for re-export. The Commissioner had allowed redemption only for re-export on payment of fines and penalties. However, there was no proof of the revisions being taken on file or notice issued to the petitioners.

3. The court differentiated this case from previous judgments cited by the Department. In one case, the court dismissed a petition as the petitioner lacked a valid passport. In another case, the petitioners were directed to appear before the revisional authority for a hearing.

4. The court noted the lack of proof regarding the filing and processing of the revisions by the Department. Despite the time elapsed since the Commissioner's order, which remained unmodified, the court directed the respondent to release the goods for re-export, subject to compliance with the conditions set by the Commissioner.

5. The final judgment directed the respondent to release the goods for re-export, subject to payment of fines and penalties, and compliance with the original order in case the Department succeeds in the revision. The respondent was given three weeks to comply with the order, and no costs were awarded.