2005 (4) TMI 82 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Inaction of Customs authorities regarding release of imported goods in compliance with the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Customs authorities' obligation to release goods in compliance with the Appellate Tribunal's order.
3. Validity of the Customs authorities' argument regarding their right of appeal and its impact on delaying enforcement of the Appellate Tribunal's order.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction of Customs authorities in releasing imported goods as per the Appellate Tribunal's order dated March 15th, 2005. The petitioner had imported photocopier machines, declared as capital goods, and faced delays in assessment, resulting in demurrage liability. After a series of legal proceedings, the Appellate Tribunal reduced the fine and penalty imposed on the petitioner. However, the Customs authorities did not release the goods despite the petitioner's willingness to deposit the revised amount.

Issue 2:
The petitioner argued that Customs authorities were under an obligation to release the goods in compliance with the Appellate Tribunal's order, citing relevant legal precedents and circulars. On the other hand, the Customs authorities contended that the petitioner should have approached the Tribunal for execution of the order and highlighted their statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court emphasized that the Customs authorities' right of appeal should not render the Tribunal's order unenforceable without obtaining a stay order.

Issue 3:
The Court addressed the Customs authorities' argument regarding their right of appeal and its impact on delaying the enforcement of the Tribunal's order. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that the department's right of appeal did not allow them to disregard the Tribunal's binding decision. Emphasizing the need for timely compliance, the Court directed the Customs authorities to release the goods if no stay order was obtained by a specified date, ensuring the petitioner's compliance with the Tribunal's order within 48 hours of making the necessary deposits.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition conditionally, ensuring the release of imported goods if the Customs authorities failed to obtain a stay order, and highlighted the importance of timely enforcement of the Tribunal's decisions.