2017 (8) TMI 977 - AT - Customs

Release of Confiscated goods - Misdeclaration of goods - enhancement of value based on contemporaneous import - the imported goods were declared as PDO which is in fact base oil - Held that - the Assistant Commissioner, Shri Gurmail Singh is deliberately avoiding compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 12-7-2016 and not releasing the goods in question. In that circumstance, Assistant Commissioner, Shri Gurmail Singh is issued a show cause notice to file reply as to why the contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him before the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and according for taking proper action against him. The notice is returnable on 25-2-2017.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods leading to enhanced value, duty demand, and penalty imposition.
2. Challenge of the order before the Tribunal.
3. Non-compliance with Tribunal's order for immediate release of goods.
4. Allegations of deliberate avoidance by Assistant Commissioner in releasing goods.
5. Issuance of show cause notice for contempt of court proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Pressed Distillate Oil (PDO) but the adjudicating authority held that the goods were misdeclared as base oil, leading to an enhanced value of the goods and imposition of differential duty and penalty. However, the Tribunal examined the issue and found that misdeclaration was not established, resulting in the adjudication order being set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal directed the immediate release of the goods as the consignments were alive.

2. Despite the Tribunal's order for immediate release, the goods were not released to the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application seeking compliance with the Tribunal's order. The appellant was directed to complete the necessary documentation, and the matter was scheduled for further review to ascertain the status of the case.

3. During the proceedings, the appellant submitted an affidavit detailing the Assistant Commissioner's actions of delaying the release of the goods. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Commissioner was deliberately avoiding compliance with the Tribunal's order. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the Assistant Commissioner, directing him to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him. The notice was returnable on a specified date.

4. In response to the Assistant Commissioner's actions, the Tribunal ensured that a copy of the show cause notice was provided to the Assistant Commissioner on the same day for immediate delivery, emphasizing the seriousness of the situation and the need for prompt action to address the non-compliance with the Tribunal's order.

Overall, the judgment highlights the importance of adherence to Tribunal orders, the consequences of non-compliance, and the measures taken to address instances of deliberate avoidance or defiance of judicial directives in the context of customs and excise matters.