2018 (1) TMI 577 - HC - Customs

Appellate order dated 10.09.2015 not acted upon - Release of Gold seized - Baggage Rules - Held that - The Department cannot keep the effect of the appellate order in abeyance for an indefinite period. In absence of any stay against implementation of such appellate order, the same should be implemented within a reasonable period - More than two years have passed since the appellate authority passed such order. By safeguarding the interest of the Department, we propose to direct release of the gold - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the seized gold as per the appellate order dated 10.09.2015.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the seized gold as per the appellate order dated 10.09.2015
The petitioner was found carrying undeclared gold upon landing at the airport. The competent authority issued a show cause notice for confiscation and penalty imposition. The competent authority later passed an order confiscating the gold and imposing penalties. The petitioner appealed this decision, and the Appellate Authority granted partial relief, ordering the release of the seized gold on payment of duty, redemption fine, and penalty. The Department, however, did not release the gold, citing a pending revision petition against the appellate order.

The High Court noted that the appellate order was in force, modifying the confiscation of gold to its release upon fulfilling certain conditions. The petitioner was willing to abide by these conditions, including paying the duty, redemption fine, and penalty. The Court emphasized that the Department cannot keep the effect of the appellate order in abeyance indefinitely. As there was no stay against the implementation of the appellate order, the Court directed the release of the gold, considering that more than two years had passed since the order was issued.

The Court disposed of the petition with directions for the petitioner to fulfill all conditions of the appellate order, including depositing the duty, redemption fine, and providing security. The Court also mentioned that any disputes regarding interest payment should be raised before the revisional authority handling the matter. Ultimately, the seized gold was to be released to the petitioner upon fulfilling the specified conditions and providing security for the determined amount.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the appellate order and directed the Department to release the seized gold to the petitioner, emphasizing the need for timely implementation of judicial decisions and the importance of abiding by legal procedures in such matters.