2021 (3) TMI 32 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - Seeking to allow clearance of used MFDs imported by the petitioner - HELD THAT - Mr. Shankhesh Mehta, the Joint Commissioner is in contempt of this Court. Mr. Mehta should not have sat in appeal over the order passed by this Court. He could not have been wiser than what has been observed by this Court in the order dated 11th January 2021. If there was any doubt in his mind as regards the correctness of the order of this Court, then he should have consulted Mr. Vyas, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. Vyas, in turn, could have preferred an appropriate application before this Court seeking review or modification of the order. However, the Joint Commissioner on his own could not have taken the view that the goods cannot be released. Mr. Mehta, the Joint Commissioner owes an explanation in this regard. Let Notice be issued to the opponents, returnable on 24th February 2021. The opponents shall be served directly through Email. Regular Direct Service is also permitted.

Summary

Issues:
- Provisional release of imported goods
- Interpretation of regulations and notifications
- Contempt of court by Joint Commissioner

Provisional Release of Imported Goods:
The petitioners sought the admission and clearance of used Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) imported by them. The Court, in a previous order, directed the respondent to decide on the application for provisional release under Section 110A of the Act within eight days. The decision was to be in line with Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009. The Court kept the larger issue of the right to import such goods open, pending the final outcome of the litigation before the Supreme Court. The Court referred to previous judgments in similar cases while disposing of the writ application.

Interpretation of Regulations and Notifications:
The Joint Commissioner, in a subsequent order, declined the provisional release of the goods citing DGFT Notification No. 05/2015-20 and other regulations. The order highlighted that the subject goods were prohibited under various acts and did not meet statutory requirements. The order differentiated the case from a previous Supreme Court judgment and a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision, stating that the prohibition applied to the goods imported by the petitioners. The Joint Commissioner's decision was based on specific regulations and notifications, denying the provisional release of the imported MFDs.

Contempt of Court by Joint Commissioner:
The Court expressed concern over the Joint Commissioner's decision, considering it as potentially contemptuous. The Court noted that the Joint Commissioner should not have disregarded the previous court order and should have sought appropriate legal recourse if in doubt. The Court issued a notice to the opponents, directing them to explain the actions of the Joint Commissioner, indicating a potential contempt of court situation.

In summary, the judgment addressed the provisional release of imported goods, the interpretation of relevant regulations and notifications, and potential contempt of court by the Joint Commissioner in making a decision contrary to the court's previous order. The detailed analysis of each issue provided clarity on the legal aspects and implications of the judgment.