9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of imported goods by Customs. 2. Adjudication proceedings and imposition of penalties. 3. Appeal before Customs, Excise, Gold Control, Appellate Tribunal. 4. Delay in re-adjudication process. 5. Refund of penalty and duty. 6. Non-compliance with court orders for payment. 7. Contempt of court by Customs authorities. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a Small Scale Industrial Unit, imported goods from Singapore in 1987, which were seized by the Superintendent of Customs during processing of Bills of Entry. Subsequently, the Collector of Customs enhanced the value of goods, confiscated them, imposed penalties, and granted release on payment of fines and penalty. 2. The petitioner appealed to the Customs, Excise, Gold Control, Appellate Tribunal (C.E.G.A.T.), which remanded the matter for re-adjudication by the Collector. However, there were delays in the re-adjudication process, with the petitioner requesting an early hearing multiple times. 3. Despite an order directing refund of the amount paid by the petitioner towards fines and penalties, the Customs authorities did not make the refund. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction for assessment and release of the amount. 4. The court directed the Customs authorities to prepare a statement for payment to the petitioner, but the respondents failed to comply with the order on multiple occasions, citing instructions from higher authorities regarding unjust enrichment. 5. The court found the respondents in contempt for willfully violating the court order to make the payment to the petitioner. A Rule was issued against the Customs authorities, calling for them to show cause for non-compliance and potential penalties, with a returnable date set for further proceedings. 6. The court emphasized the paramountcy of court orders and the obligation of individuals to comply with them, rejecting the excuse of being bound by higher authorities. The specific officers involved were named in the judgment, and a Rule was issued for their appearance before the court to explain the non-compliance. 7. The court refused the request to deposit the amount in court, maintaining the clarity and validity of the original order for payment. The judgment highlighted the seriousness of contempt of court and the need for strict prosecution in such cases.
|
