1994 (9) TMI 82 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Tariff Heading No. 8482.20 for exemption benefit.
2. Compliance with the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) for releasing goods.
3. Lack of stay order against the Collector of Customs (Appeals) order dated 8th April, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods, specifically 5000 pieces of Taper Roller Bearings No. 32211, for exemption benefit. The Customs authorities initially denied the exemption, citing that the bearings were not eligible for the benefit as they were intended for manufacturing briquetting presses in India. The petitioner appealed this decision, and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) overturned the initial order, emphasizing the need to interpret the notification in a straightforward manner, in line with judicial precedents. The Collector directed the lower authority to classify the goods under Tariff sub-heading 8482.20 and extend the benefit of a specific Customs Notification.

2. Following the Collector of Customs (Appeals) order on 8th April, 1994, the petitioner sought compliance from the Customs authorities for releasing the goods based on the assessed duty. However, despite the order being passed, no action was taken by the authorities to release the goods. Consequently, the writ petition was filed to address the non-compliance with the Collector's order and to secure the release of the goods upon payment of the assessed duty. The counsel for the petitioner relied on legal precedents emphasizing the binding nature of appellate orders on revenue officers, stressing the importance of following higher authorities' decisions to avoid undue harassment to taxpayers.

3. The court addressed the absence of a stay order against the Collector of Customs (Appeals) order dated 8th April, 1994. Despite inquiries and instructions from the Customs Department, no evidence of a stay order was presented to the court. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the court emphasized that in the absence of a stay order, the authorities were obligated to implement the Collector's order for releasing the goods. Consequently, the court directed the Customs Authorities to proceed with releasing the goods within two weeks of the order, emphasizing compliance with the Collector's directive. The court also noted the lack of filed affidavits from the respondents and made no order regarding costs, with all parties instructed to act based on a signed copy of the court's order.