1993 (8) TMI 83 - SC - Customs

Whether the goods concerned in the order of the Central Board dated 5-4-1980 and the goods concerned herein are identical or not? Held that - If the goods which were considered in the order dated 5-4-1980 made by the Central Board and the goods which are the subject-matter of the appeal are identical, there is no doubt that the Collector was bound to follow the orders of the Board - unless, of course, there was an order of a higher authority or of this Court or of the High Court having jurisdiction over the territory wherein the goods were seized, to the contrary. So far as the Collector is concerned, the order of the Board was binding upon him, provided the goods were identical. Indeed, the Board s decision was in the case of the appellant himself. We do not, of course, wish to express any opinion whether the goods concerned in the order of the Central Board dated 5-4-1980 and the goods concerned herein are identical or not. That is a matter for the Collector or the appropriate authorities to decide. Allow these appeals and remit the matter back to the Appellate Collector for disposing of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made hereinabove.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods by Customs Authorities
2. Revision of order by Central Board of Customs and Excise
3. Quashing of notice by Delhi High Court
4. Disagreement between Collector of Customs and appellant
5. Applicability of Central Board's order on goods
6. Appeal to Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to two appeals against the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin's decision to confiscate goods but allowing redemption upon payment of a fine. The appellant, a footwear manufacturer, imported goods that were deemed as complete footwear by Customs Authorities, leading to confiscation. The Central Board of Customs and Excise later ruled that the goods were not footwear, allowing the appeal. However, the Government of India sought to revise this decision. Another consignment faced a similar objection, prompting the appellant to approach the Delhi High Court. The High Court quashed the revision notice but allowed the show cause notice for the second consignment. The Collector disagreed with the appellant, stating the goods were fully finished chappals, not covered under Open General Licence. The appellant contended that the Collector was bound by the Central Board's order unless overruled by a higher authority. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Appellate Collector for proper disposal, emphasizing the binding nature of the Central Board's decision on identical goods.

The judgment clarifies that the Collector must follow the Central Board's decision unless overridden by a higher authority. The Supreme Court did not opine on the identity of goods but emphasized the Collector's obligation to adhere to the Board's order. The Court allowed the appeals and directed the matter back to the Appellate Collector for lawful disposal. Additionally, the Court addressed the Revenue's concern regarding the availability of goods for confiscation due to redemption, stating that the appellant cannot challenge the proceedings after opting for redemption while contesting the confiscation order. The judgment ensures the proper application of law and upholds the binding nature of decisions made by competent authorities in customs matters.