2017 (11) TMI 1275 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of goods - alteration in the order for release of goods - Held that - the undisputed fact is that on 23.03.2017 initially the order for provisional release of the goods was passed with certain conditions as enumerated in Para 2 hereinabove and the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued to the applicant and the same was adjudicated. The said adjudication order was remanded back by this Tribunal to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication and order dated 09.08.2017 was passed by this Tribunal for provisional release of the goods on the conditions enumerated in Para-3 hereinabove and the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity. The Id. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana has altered the condition of the interim order dated 09.08.2017 passed by this Tribunal. Therefore, the said officer appears to have committed the contempt of this Court - he Id. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana is to show cause as to why the proceedings for contempt of court under the said act, should not be referred to the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Summary

Issues:
Application for compliance of Final Order of Tribunal under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an appeal against a provisional release order under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, with specific conditions. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn but later restored by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal modified the order for provisional release of goods, specifying conditions. The Commissioner of Customs then ordered the provisional release of goods in compliance with the Tribunal's order. However, the Commissioner added a condition regarding the drawing of representative samples, which the applicant contested as contempt of the Tribunal's order. The Revenue argued that the sample drawl was a statutory requirement under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's modification of conditions amounted to interference in the delivery of justice. Referring to relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's actions could be considered contempt of court. A show cause notice was issued to the Commissioner to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the sequence of events, the Tribunal's orders, the Commissioner's actions, legal arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision regarding contempt of court. The judgment emphasizes the importance of upholding Tribunal orders and the consequences of altering conditions set by the Tribunal without authority.