2006 (4) TMI 148 - HC - Customs

Appellate order - Non-implementation of - Release of goods - HELD THAT - Admittedly, though the CESTAT pronounced Final Order, the Revenue has not so far obtained any order from the CESTAT suspending the operation of the said order. It is not the case of the Revenue that the order of the CESTAT has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, I am of the view that the principle laid down by the Apex Court of the land in 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT has to be applied and the third respondent should follow unreservedly the orders of the CESTAT, Chennai. Therefore, the third respondent is directed to release the Mulberry Raw Silk imported under Bill of Entry No. 875113 as per Sales Contract No. IE/PSR-RS03/2005, dated 17-2-2005 in terms of the Final Order No. 174/2006, of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The third respondent shall release the above said goods covered by the said Bill of Entry on or before 7-4-2006.

Summary

Issues:
Release of Mulberry Raw Silk imported under specific Bill of Entry and Sales Contract, failure of third respondent to implement orders of Appellate Authorities, petitioner incurring demurrage charges due to non-clearance of goods.

Analysis:

The writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus to direct the third respondent to release Mulberry Raw Silk imported under a specific Bill of Entry and Sales Contract. The petitioner had challenged the third respondent's order and the Appellate Commissioner had set aside the order, allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Despite this, the goods were not released, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The High Court had previously directed the release of goods in line with the Appellate Authority's order unless a stay was obtained by a certain date. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Appellate Authority's order, emphasizing the duty of the third respondent to implement such orders.

The petitioner and its counsel made multiple representations to the respondents, highlighting the orders of the Court and the Appellate Authority, but the goods were still not released. The counsel for the petitioner even sent a telegraphic notice seeking immediate release of goods, which was unsuccessful. The High Court noted that the third respondent's failure to implement the orders of the Appellate Authority was unjustifiable and amounted to harassment of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner cited legal precedents to support the binding nature of Appellate Authority's orders on the third respondent.

The Additional Solicitor General did not dispute the legal submissions but mentioned the Revenue's intention to file an appeal and seek interim suspension of the CESTAT's order. The High Court emphasized the principle of judicial discipline, stating that authorities are bound by decisions of Tribunals or Appellate Authorities. As the CESTAT's order had not been stayed by the Supreme Court, the High Court directed the third respondent to release the imported goods in accordance with the CESTAT's Final Order. The writ petition was allowed, with a deadline set for the release of goods, subject to any interim orders obtained by the Revenue from the CESTAT or the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of implementing orders of Appellate Authorities, emphasizing the binding nature of such decisions on concerned parties. The High Court's decision aimed to ensure compliance with the CESTAT's order for the release of the imported goods, addressing the petitioner's concerns regarding demurrage charges and the third respondent's failure to act in accordance with legal directives.