2016 (12) TMI 1108 - HC - Customs

Redemption fine - Penalty - smuggled gold bars/jewellery - Revision order - Held that - the Hon ble Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of NVR Forgings vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT held that the revision by the Central Government entrusted to a Joint Secretary level officer equal to Commissioner is not empowered to pass revisional order against the order passed by the Officer of same rank and therefore the order passed by the revisional authority which was challenged in a writ petition was set aside. Taking into consideration of the fact that orders have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) during September/December 2015, the gold bars/jewellery cannot be endlessly be retained by the Department, more so, when the petitioner has consented before the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority who have granted the relief of re-export subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty -

Summary

Issues:
Implementation of order passed by Commissioner (Appeal-I) for re-export of gold bars/jewellery by Non-resident Indian and Indian Passport holders detained at Airport.

Analysis:
The writ petitions sought implementation of orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeal-I) for re-export of gold bars/jewellery by the petitioners who were detained at the airport. The petitioners, including Non-resident Indians and Indian Passport holders, had smuggled gold bars/jewellery and were allowed to re-export them on payment of redemption fine and penalty by the adjudicating authority. The petitioners filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeal-I) challenging the redemption fine and penalty imposed, which were partly allowed resulting in a marginal reduction. However, as of the judgment date, the orders had not been implemented, leading the petitioners to approach the court through writ petitions.

The main issue before the court was whether a direction should be issued to the respondent to release the gold bars/jewellery within a specific timeframe. The respondents argued that the petitioners had filed revisions before the Central Government against the Commissioner (Appeal-I) orders. However, citing a judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it was highlighted that the revisional authority at the Joint Secretary level, equivalent to the Commissioner, did not have the power to pass revisional orders against the same rank officer's decision. This was further reinforced by the Supreme Court's dismissal of a Special Leave Petition filed by the Central Government against the mentioned judgment, indicating the lack of jurisdiction for the revisional authority.

The court noted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs had accepted the legal position and was taking remedial measures. Emphasizing that the gold bars/jewellery could not be retained indefinitely, especially when the petitioners had consented to re-export upon payment of fines, the court directed the respondent to release the items within a week of payment of redemption fine and penalty. The petitioners were also required to furnish a bond securing the Department's interest in case of success before the revisional authority. The judgment aimed to balance the interests of the petitioners and the revenue, ensuring compliance with the Customs Act and Rules while providing relief to the petitioners.