2017 (1) TMI 1350 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of revisional authority to take up the proceedings - smuggling of gold - one of the reasons that the Revisional Authority is not able to take up the proceedings for hearing, is that, as presently constituted, the said authority holds a rank, which is equivalent to the post of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - Held that - the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of NVR Forgings V.Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , has ruled that since the rank of the Revisional Authority and that of the Appellate Authority was the same, the order passed by the Revisional Authority, could not be sustained. The rank of the Revisional Authority would be upgraded to a level higher than that of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The petitioner will deposit a sum of ₹ 1,90,000/- towards redemption fine and penalty, subject to which the goods will be released - petition disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) sought by the petitioner.

Analysis:
In this case, the petitioner was intercepted at Anna International Airport carrying gold, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice. The order-in-original allowed re-export of gold on payment of redemption fine and penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who partially allowed the appeal by reducing the redemption fine and penalty. The Revenue filed a revision petition against this order, but no interim order was issued staying the operation of the order-in-appeal. The petitioner sought implementation of the order since no Superior Authority had stayed it.

The delay in the revision proceedings was attributed to the rank equivalence issue between the Revisional Authority and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Revenue proposed conferring revision power on a higher-ranked officer based on a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment. This judgment emphasized that orders by officers of the same rank are impermissible. The Special Leave Petition against this judgment was dismissed.

Considering the circumstances and the proposed rank upgrade of the Revisional Authority, the court directed the petitioner to deposit the revised redemption fine and penalty amount. The petitioner was required to secure the difference amount and furnish a personal bond for the remaining value of the gold. Upon fulfilling these conditions, the petitioner would be allowed to re-export the gold. The court mandated verification of the Bank Certificate's authenticity before acceptance and set a four-week timeline for completion of the process.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of without costs, with directions for compliance with the revised redemption fine and penalty terms, subject to specified conditions and timelines.