2016 (12) TMI 518 - HC - Customs

Release of confiscated goods - two watches - redemption fine already paid - Held that - this is a fit case where appropriate direction should be issued to release the watches in question, upon the petitioner complying with the conditions as per the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 5.12.2013. Mere pendency of the revision petition before the Revisional Authority will not amount to an order of stay, that too when the revision petition is pending for more than three years. Further, the Department has not been able to obtain any orders from the Revisional Authority - However, this Court is not inclined to issue any such direction in the instant case for the reason that the Department has not been able to move the Revisional Authority and obtain any orders for over three years. Having accepted the redemption fine from the petitioner, there is no justification on the part of the Department to refuse to comply with the Order-in-Appeal dated 5.12.2013. The writ petition is disposed of directing the release of the goods in question forthwith on payment of the personal penalty to the tune of ₹ 10,000/-, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), as already the petitioner paid the redemption fine to the tune of ₹ 80,000/-. The goods shall be released within two days - petition allowed - decided oin favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction sought for release of watches based on Commissioner (Appeals) order
2. Delay in disposal of revision petition by the Central Government
3. Requirement of furnishing a bond for the full value

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed appeal petitions against the Order-in-Original by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The appeals were successful, setting aside the confiscation order with conditions of redemption fine and personal penalty. The petitioner paid the redemption fine but not the personal penalty. Despite the Department filing a revision petition with the Central Government, it remains pending, causing delay. The court noted that the revision petition's pendency does not imply a stay order, especially after three years, with no orders obtained by the Department.

2. The court considered the circumstances and directed the release of the watches upon the petitioner's compliance with the Commissioner (Appeals) order. It emphasized that the Department's failure to move the Revisional Authority and obtain orders for over three years, despite accepting the redemption fine, does not justify withholding compliance with the Order-in-Appeal. The court declined to issue a direction for furnishing a bond for the full value, citing the Department's inaction and the petitioner's fulfillment of the redemption fine.

3. The judgment disposed of the writ petition by ordering the immediate release of the goods upon payment of the personal penalty of ?10,000, as specified by the Commissioner (Appeals). The release was to occur within two days of payment. The court concluded the judgment without imposing any costs on either party.