2020 (9) TMI 693 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal has not been admitted nor any notice has been issued to it as yet, cannot be entertained in the present petition - Release of seized goods - release sought on the premise that the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of seizure under Section 128 of the Act has been decided in its favour - Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - As far as prayer in the present writ petition to give effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 128 of the Act is concerned, the appropriate course of action for the petitioner would be to approach the adjudicating authority, which has passed the order of confiscation of goods, to give effect to the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. for releasing the seized goods, if the seizure order has been set aside in appeal and there is no interim order against the petitioner reviving seizure of goods. Simultaneously, it would be open for the department to pursue the stay application in the pending appeal. No mandamus can be issued in the writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Release of seized goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 after a favorable decision in a statutory appeal under Section 128. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner subject to adjudication in a pending appeal under Section 129-A.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the release of seized goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, following a successful statutory appeal against the seizure order under Section 128. Respondent's counsel confirmed that an appeal had been filed before the appellate tribunal under Section 129-A after the writ petition was lodged. The court noted that the validity of the Commissioner's order was under review in the pending appeal, and the petitioner's claim that the appeal had not been admitted or served notice could not be addressed in the current petition. The court advised the petitioner to approach the adjudicating authority to implement the appellate order for releasing the goods if the seizure order was overturned in the appeal, suggesting that the department could seek a stay in the pending appeal. No mandamus was issued in the writ petition, which was subsequently dismissed.

The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the case's merits or the parties' claims, emphasizing that the competent authority must make independent decisions in compliance with the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the appropriate legal procedures and avenues for seeking relief in customs-related matters, emphasizing the need for parties to abide by the decisions of the appellate authorities and the competent adjudicating bodies.