2021 (8) TMI 899 - AT - Customs

Permission to carry out the amendment in the shipping bills - rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedural), Rules 1992 - HELD THAT - In spite of the fact that an application was filed by the appellant and an order was passed by the Tribunal on March 22, 2021, no further instructions have been given by the Department to the learned Authorized Representative after April 15, 2021 - It goes without saying that mere filing of an appeal and that too a defective appeal would not mean that the Department has not to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal. About eighteen months have passed since the order was passed by the Tribunal on February 24, 2020 but till date it has not been implemented - learned counsel for the appellant has placed Circulars issued by the Board that the order of the High Court/ Tribunal should be implemented, unless a stay has been obtained from the Higher Judicial forum on the implementation of the order, however, before exercising our powers under rule 41 of the 1992 Rules, it is considered appropriate, as a last opportunity, to grant three weeks further time to the Department to either implement the order passed by the Tribunal or pursue the writ petition filed in the High Court. List this application on August 23, 2021.

Issues:
1. Compliance with Tribunal's order for amendment in shipping bills.
2. Failure of respondent to implement Tribunal's direction.
3. Filing of appeals by the Department in the High Court.
4. Defective appeal filed in the High Court.
5. Delay in implementing Tribunal's order.
6. Applicability of Circulars issued by the Board on order implementation.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with Tribunal's order for amendment in shipping bills
The appeal was allowed by a detailed order directing the appellant to be permitted to carry out the amendment in the shipping bills. The Tribunal found that the amendment sought by the appellant was liable to be allowed under section 149 of the Customs Act and a specific notification. However, despite the order, the appellant faced non-compliance by the respondent, leading to subsequent legal actions.

Issue 2: Failure of respondent to implement Tribunal's direction
The appellant filed an application seeking directions from the Tribunal for the respondent to implement the order. The appellant highlighted the prolonged deprivation of exemption claim despite the Tribunal's final order. Citing a judgment emphasizing the binding nature of Tribunal decisions, the appellant argued for appropriate directions to be issued due to financial prejudice caused by non-implementation.

Issue 3: Filing of appeals by the Department in the High Court
The Department filed appeals, including one against the Tribunal's order, in the Delhi High Court. The delay in resolving these appeals was noted, with the appellant pointing out that only a defective appeal had been filed without attempts to rectify the issues hindering the listing of appeals before the High Court.

Issue 4: Defective appeal filed in the High Court
It was observed that the Department had filed a defective appeal in the High Court, and no efforts had been made to rectify the deficiencies. The non-rectification of defects in the appeal raised concerns about the Department's compliance with the Tribunal's direction despite the lapse of significant time since the original order.

Issue 5: Delay in implementing Tribunal's order
Despite the passage of eighteen months since the Tribunal's order, the implementation had not taken place. The appellant's counsel highlighted the non-removal of defects and emphasized the necessity for compliance with Tribunal orders. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the delay and emphasized the importance of timely implementation of judicial directives.

Issue 6: Applicability of Circulars issued by the Board on order implementation
The appellant referred to Circulars issued by the Board emphasizing the implementation of High Court/Tribunal orders unless a stay was obtained. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, granted a final opportunity for the Department to either implement the order or pursue the writ petition filed in the High Court within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of timely compliance with Tribunal orders, the binding nature of Tribunal decisions, and the necessity for effective implementation to uphold the rule of law and prevent undue financial prejudice to parties involved.

← Previous Next →