1990 (8) TMI 169 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector of Customs to prefer an appeal under Section 129D(4) of the Customs Act.
2. Validity of the order made by the Collector (Appeals) for fresh adjudication by the Deputy Collector of Customs.
3. Reopening of the fine paid in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act.
4. Detention of baggage without communication to the petitioner.
5. Justification for the Assistant Collector of Customs to prefer an appeal.
6. Legality of directing Deputy Collector to examine the matter afresh and impose a fine.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Assistant Collector of Customs to release imported goods. The Assistant Collector of Customs filed an appeal against his own adjudication, which was found to be invalid due to the provisions of Section 129D(5) and Section 129DA(2) not being in force. The appeal was deemed invalid, and the entire appeal was held to fall through.

Issue 2:
The Collector (Appeals) set aside the original adjudication order by the Assistant Collector of Customs and directed fresh adjudication by the Deputy Collector of Customs. The petitioner challenged this order, claiming it was unfair and beyond the Collector's power. The court found the order to be invalid and amounting to maneuvering, as the Assistant Collector's jurisdiction was limited, and the order was set aside.

Issue 3:
The petitioner argued that the fine paid in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act could not be reopened for reimposition. The court agreed, stating that no fresh penalty could be imposed after the Assistant Collector's order exonerated the petitioner and allowed redemption of the detained baggage on payment of the initial fine.

Issue 4:
The petitioner alleged arbitrary detention of baggage without communication after payment of duty and fine. The court found this detention to be wrongful, arbitrary, and harassing to the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of communication and the extended period of detention.

Issue 5:
The court questioned the justification for the Assistant Collector of Customs to prefer an appeal and found no jurisdiction for such action. The release of goods was delayed unreasonably, causing prejudice to the petitioner, and the order directing further examination by other authorities was deemed bad in law.

Issue 6:
The court found the direction by the Collector (Appeals) to the Deputy Collector to examine the matter afresh and impose a fine to be invalid. The order was considered prejudicial to the petitioner's interests, and the release of goods was directed upon furnishing an indemnity bond for potential additional duties and fines upon fresh adjudication.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the release of goods upon furnishing an indemnity bond, with a sample to be kept, and allowing further adjudication while emphasizing the rights of both parties and no order as to costs.