2023 (11) TMI 1174 - AT - Customs

Failure to implement the order of the tribunal - Re-export of goods - Application filed under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for implementing the Final order of the tribunal - direction to permit the applicant/ appellant to re-export the gold jewelleries within a period of two months. HELD THAT - From the facts as narrated, it is quite evident that concerned officers are acting in defiance of the orders of this tribunal, by violating the principles of judicial discipline. Sufficient time and opportunity has been given to the concerned authorities to act as per the law, and follow the rule of law as has been provided by the Constitution of India. However the arrogance of these officers by not implementing the orders of this tribunal is self evident even when by the order dated 21.06.2021, the tribunal by asking the applicant to file a bank guarantee and keep it alive till the disposal of the Appeal Filed by the revenue before Hon ble Allahabad High Court has protected the interests of revenue. As the Respondent Commissioner and Commissioner of Customs (Exports) New Delhi has not implemented the order of the Tribunal even after being directed under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 and having been allowed sufficient time and opportunity, this is a fit case for imposition of cost on the Commissioner to ensure that he understands the meaning of the phrase Judicial discipline - As the Commissioner has acted in flagrant falling the authority of this Tribunal the matter needs to be referred to the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the concerned Commissioner. It is directed that the concerned Commissioner should implement the order dated 12.09.2019 within fortnight of the receipt of this order - List this matter for reporting compliance with this order on 11.12.2023.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Implementation of Final Order by the Commissioner of Customs.
2. Compliance with Tribunal Orders and Judicial Discipline.
3. Contempt Proceedings against Revenue Authorities.
4. Imposition of Costs for Non-compliance.

Summary:

1. Implementation of Final Order by the Commissioner of Customs:
The appellant sought the implementation of the Final Order No. 71733-71742/2019 dated 12.09.2019, which directed the Commissioner of Customs, Noida to permit the re-export of gold jewellery. Despite repeated requests and submission of a bank guarantee, the Commissioner failed to comply with the order.

2. Compliance with Tribunal Orders and Judicial Discipline:
The Tribunal noted that despite no stay being granted by the Allahabad High Court, the concerned officers did not allow the re-export of the gold jewellery. The Tribunal issued multiple orders under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, directing compliance, but the Commissioner continued to defy these orders. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, citing various Supreme Court judgments, and criticized the Commissioner's actions as "highly unacceptable and unreasonable/unjustified."

3. Contempt Proceedings against Revenue Authorities:
The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner's persistent non-compliance with its orders warranted the initiation of contempt proceedings. It referred the matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, for consideration of contempt proceedings against the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), IGI Airport, New Delhi.

4. Imposition of Costs for Non-compliance:
Due to the Commissioner's failure to implement the Tribunal's orders, a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- was imposed on the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), IGI Airport, New Delhi. The Tribunal directed that this amount be paid by the concerned Commissioner or recovered from his salary and deposited to the P.M. Cares fund within a fortnight of receipt of the order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to implement the order dated 12.09.2019 within a fortnight and imposed costs for the delay. The matter was also referred to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of judicial discipline and adherence to appellate authority decisions.