2023 (12) TMI 190 - AT - Customs

Violation of principles of judicial discipline - Seeking provisional release of seized goods - Smuggling - foreign origin gold and cash - release denied on the ground that respondent was not cooperating with the investigation proceedings - HELD THAT - From the plain reading of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, it is quite evident that provisional release of the seized goods in terms of Section 110A goods, document and things seized, pending adjudication has been allowed as a right to the person who claims ownership of the said goods, documents and things. The only requirement is that at the time of release the bond in proper form with security and conditions as adjudicating authority may impose, should be taken from him. The only grounds stated by the Additional Commissioner in Order-in-Original for not allowing the provisional release of the seized goods and Indian currency is that respondent was not cooperating with the investigation proceedings. The ongoing investigation cannot be ground for the denial of right to the provisional release of seized goods conferred on the respondent by the Customs Act, 1962. It seems that the Additional Commissioner, while passing this order has not acted as quasi judicial authority but an agent of investigating team of DRI officers and have instead of implementing the rule of law has decided to implement the will of the investigating authorities. Such an approach or interference in quasi judicial functioning by the investigating authorities is totally uncalled for and is condemned. It is not understood as to how officers responsible for implementing a Central Law - Customs Act, 1962, holding high positions of Commissioner in the justice delivery system as per the Act, ibid, direct contrary to the provisions of the law as have been interpreted by the Higher Judicial Forums including the Jurisdictional High Court. The appeal filed itself goes contrary to the principles of judicial discipline which are so sacrosanct for establishing rule of law. It is directed that copy of this order should be given to the Chief Commissioner of the zone and Member Investigation/ Member Customs for taking necessary action and to ensure that such practices is avoided - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release of seized goods and currency.
2. Compliance with Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Judicial application of mind by quasi-judicial authorities.
4. Adherence to judicial discipline and National Litigation Policy.

Summary:

Provisional Release of Seized Goods and Currency:
The appeal filed by the revenue challenges the Order-in-Appeal No.87-CUS/APPL/LKO/2023, which allowed the provisional release of seized Indian currency and silver bullion. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted provisional release based on judicial precedents, requiring the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee and cash security.

Compliance with Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962:
Section 110A permits the provisional release of seized goods pending adjudication, provided the owner furnishes a bond with security and conditions as required by the Commissioner of Customs. The Additional Commissioner initially denied the provisional release, citing ongoing investigations and non-cooperation by the appellant.

Judicial Application of Mind by Quasi-Judicial Authorities:
The Tribunal criticized the Additional Commissioner for acting as an agent of the investigating team rather than as a quasi-judicial authority. The Tribunal emphasized that ongoing investigations cannot justify denying the right to provisional release under Section 110A. The Commissioner (Appeals) was commended for applying judicial principles and following judicial precedents.

Adherence to Judicial Discipline and National Litigation Policy:
The Tribunal noted that the appeal by the revenue contradicted established judicial principles and the National Litigation Policy, which aims to reduce frivolous litigation. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and condemned the revenue's appeal as contrary to the principles of law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow provisional release of the seized goods and currency, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal directed that a copy of the order be sent to higher authorities to prevent such practices in the future. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of judicial discipline and proper application of the law.