1993 (6) TMI 90 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with the Tribunal's order by Customs Authorities.
2. Interpretation of Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Application of Clause 5 of Section 27 of the Customs Act to refund claims.
4. Applicability of Section 27(5) of the Customs Act.
5. Effect of filing a reference application on the Tribunal's order.
6. Direction for depositing the refund amount.
7. Entitlement to interest in case of non-compliance.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the Customs Authorities' refusal to comply with the Tribunal's order directing a refund of Customs duty to the first respondent. The Tribunal had ordered the refund subject to certain conditions, including executing a personal bond. The Customs Authorities filed a reference application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, which was rejected. Despite this, they did not make the payment as directed by the Tribunal, leading to a writ application for mandamus to enforce compliance.

2. The Court examined the application under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, which raised questions regarding the application of Clause 5 of Section 27 to refund claims and the interpretation of relevant provisions. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was binding on the Customs Authorities, and filing a reference application did not stay the Tribunal's order. The Court directed the Customs Authorities to deposit the refund amount with the Registrar, Original Side, or provide a bank guarantee within a specified timeline.

3. The Court addressed the issue of interest, stating that the first respondent would not be entitled to interest from the date of the Tribunal's order until the date of deposit by the Customs Authorities. However, if the Customs Authorities failed to comply, the first respondent would be entitled to execute the Tribunal's order and the Court's order, along with interest at a specified rate. The Court modified the order under appeal accordingly.

4. The Court noted the absence of an affidavit-in-opposition and clarified that the allegations in the petition were not admitted by the first respondent. The Court dispensed with the filing of a paper book and discharged any related undertakings, directing all parties to act on a signed copy of the order.