1989 (1) TMI 132 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order of Additional Collector of Customs confiscating imported goods.
2. Competency of the Appellate Tribunal to interpret the classification of goods.
3. Availability of alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal.
4. Justification for releasing the imported goods pending appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The writ petition challenged the order of the Additional Collector of Customs confiscating imported goods valued at Rs. 1,96,920 CIF under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had imported populated printed circuit boards (PPCB) under endorsed REP licenses. The Additional Collector found the goods to be interconnected sub-assemblies not covered by the import license. The petitioner contended that the goods were in accordance with the license terms and that the Additional Collector lacked basis for his decision. The court noted the need for expert opinion and factual investigation, directing the petitioner to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for appropriate remedy.

2. The competency of the Appellate Tribunal to interpret the classification of goods was questioned by the petitioner, arguing that the Tribunal lacked the power to pass interim orders. The court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the Tribunal could investigate factual aspects to determine the nature of PPCB. It highlighted the importance of specialized Tribunals in resolving such disputes and urged petitioners to utilize the Tribunal for speedy remedies, thereby justifying its existence.

3. The availability of an alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal was a key issue raised during the proceedings. The court emphasized that the Appellate Tribunal was competent to investigate factual aspects and interpret the entry related to PPCB. It discouraged bypassing specialized Tribunals, stating that approaching the Tribunal for remedy was essential to maintain the purpose of such institutions and avoid overburdening the High Court with factual investigations.

4. Regarding the release of the imported goods pending appeal, the court acknowledged the petitioner's plea and directed the release of goods on certain conditions to ensure the interests of both the petitioner and the Revenue were safeguarded. The petitioner was instructed to file an appeal before the Special Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, pay redemption fine and customs duty, and clear the goods subject to specified conditions, including a penalty payment.

In conclusion, the court upheld the order for the petitioner to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, directed the release of goods under specified conditions, and emphasized the importance of utilizing specialized Tribunals for resolving such disputes efficiently.