2016 (7) TMI 1160 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - violation of orders of the high court - it was submmited that there is a complete breach and violation of this Court s order and direction. It is a mockery that instead of passing an order pursuant to the appearance of the petitioner, the Principal Chief Commissioner has allowed some body who not of the same rank, but in the department to address such communications and pre-judge the issue. Held that - In the peculiar circumstances and expressing our strong displeasure we have taken up the request of Mr. Kantawala ourselves. We find that the good are lying with the Customs from November, 2015. Till date, there was no prohibition or any restraint on the department to pass an order of provisional assessment or to issue show cause notice and take up the adjudication proceedings themselves. Now allowing them to again consider the request for provisional release of goods and pass an order in that regard would be an exercise in futility. Now that everything is disclosed and placed before this Court, we do not think that any further time should be wasted. The consignment lying with the Customs serves nobody s purpose. - Writ petition disposed off with directions.

Summary

Issues: Breach of court order regarding provisional release of goods, violation of petitioner's rights, pre-judgment by customs officials, appropriate remedy for the situation

In this judgment by the Bombay High Court, the court addressed the issue of a breach of its previous order regarding the provisional release of goods by the Customs department. The petitioner argued that the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs allowed an unauthorized official to address communications and pre-judge the issue, violating the court's order. The court noted the violation and expressed strong displeasure at the department's actions. Despite the department's request to pass an order through a competent official, the court refused, stating that no fruitful purpose would be served given the circumstances. The court highlighted that the goods had been with the Customs since November 2015, and further delays would be futile.

The court, after considering the submissions from both sides, decided to provisionally release the goods under certain conditions. The petitioner was required to allow department officials to take photographs of the TV sets, seize any related materials and documents, and furnish a bond and bank guarantee within a week. The provisional release was granted without prejudice to the rights of both parties and did not prevent the issuance of a show cause notice or the passing of appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that any future adjudication should be unbiased and uninfluenced by previous communications or affidavits. The court disposed of the writ petition and the civil application, with no order as to costs.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding court orders and ensuring fair treatment in legal proceedings. It also highlights the court's authority to intervene when violations occur and to provide appropriate remedies to safeguard the rights of the parties involved.