2016 (10) TMI 863 - HC - Customs

Implementation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) - concealment of gold in baggage - confiscated gold was given an option to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty - quantum of fine and penalty reduced by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) and this order seeks to be implemented by petitioner for release of gold - Held that - The petitioner is directed to remit the entire amount as ordered to be paid as redemption fine by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) as well as the personal penalty and furnish bank guarantee for a sum of ₹ 3,50,000/- and the remaining amount to be secured by a personal bond by the petitioner and her husband supported with full details, authenticated records, especially, proof of residence etc. and such bond shall be for the differential amount of redemption fine as well as the differential amount of the personal penalty within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On compliance of the above direction, the Department is granted 30 days time to release the seized goods for re-exportation. Within this 30 days which shall be computed from the date of furnishing bank guarantee and bond, it is open to the Department to secure orders from the Revisional Authority - petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Implementation of order passed by Commissioner of Customs
2. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty
3. Delay in implementing the order
4. Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority
5. Compliance with conditions for re-exportation

Implementation of order passed by Commissioner of Customs:
The petitioner sought implementation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) reducing the redemption fine and penalty. The Commissioner had reduced the redemption fine from ?17,25,000 to ?7,00,000 and the penalty from ?3,25,000 to ?1,50,000. The petitioner requested enforcement of this order as it had not been implemented despite the lapse of more than a year since its issuance.

Reduction of redemption fine and penalty:
The Adjudicating Officer had initially ordered confiscation of gold bars and jewelry with an option for redemption for re-exportation on payment of a fine of ?17,25,000 and imposed a personal penalty of ?3,25,000 on the petitioner. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and penalty. The petitioner sought compliance with the reduced amounts as per the Commissioner's order.

Delay in implementing the order:
The Department had filed an appeal against the Adjudicating Officer's order, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Appeals. Subsequently, revisions were filed by the Department against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). However, as of the current date, no interim order had been granted by the Revisional Authority, causing a delay in implementing the Commissioner's order.

Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority:
The Revenue contended that the Revisional Authority might order confiscation if successful in the revision, causing prejudice if the Commissioner's order was implemented. The petitioner argued that the Revisional Authority lacked jurisdiction, citing a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner aimed to re-export the seized articles in compliance with the conditions set by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

Compliance with conditions for re-exportation:
The Court directed the petitioner to remit the redemption fine and penalty as per the Commissioner's order and provide a bank guarantee along with a personal bond within three weeks. Upon compliance, the Department was given 30 days to release the seized goods for re-exportation. The Department could seek orders from the Revisional Authority within this 30-day period. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with these directions, emphasizing the importance of compliance to ensure justice.