2023 (2) TMI 218 - SCH - Customs

Jurisdiction of High Court does to interfere in the matter of setting aside the seizure of import consignment - HELD THAT - The operation of the order impugned was stayed by this Court on 6th September, 2021. In fact, in the order dated 21st October, 2021, this Court had indeed expressed the opinion, albeit tentatively, that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. In the said order, at the request of the learned Additional Solicitor General, the Department was also permitted to carry on the investigation and take consequential steps in that regard. Now when Order-in-Original has been passed and an appeal challenging the same has been filed, the matter should be left open for examination by the appellate authority in accordance with law. For that matter, suffice would be to observe that none of the observations made in the order impugned or in the orders passed by this Court shall operate prejudicial to the interests of either of the parties. In other words, the appeal shall be considered by the appellate authority on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations appearing in the impugned order or in this order. To put the record straight, the impugned order dated 26th August, 2021 is set aside but, with the observations foregoing. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interference of High Court in setting aside seizure of import consignment.
2. Stay of operation of the impugned order by the Supreme Court.
3. Passing of Order-in-Original and filing of an appeal challenging the same.
4. Disposal of the special leave petition and pending applications.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court noted the submissions by both parties and the subsequent appeal filed before the Commissioner of Customs against the Order-in-Original. The Court observed that the High Court's interference in setting aside the seizure of the import consignment may not be justified without elaborating on merits. The Court opined that the matter should be left for examination by the appellate authority, stating that none of the observations made shall prejudice either party's interests.

2. The Court mentioned that the operation of the impugned order was stayed earlier by the Supreme Court, expressing a tentative opinion that the order may not be sustainable in law. The Department was permitted to continue the investigation as per the Additional Solicitor General's request. The Court highlighted the need for the appellate authority to consider the appeal on its own merits, without being influenced by any previous observations, setting aside the impugned order with certain observations.

3. With the passing of the Order-in-Original and the filing of an appeal challenging it, the Court emphasized that the matter should be examined by the appellate authority in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that the appeal should be considered independently, without being influenced by any previous observations made in the impugned order or the current order. The impugned order dated 26th August, 2021 was set aside, but with the foregoing observations.

4. Finally, the special leave petition was disposed of accordingly, and any pending applications were also disposed of. The Court concluded the judgment by addressing the disposal of the special leave petition and any pending applications related to the case.