2006 (12) TMI 151 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding import of second-hand printing machines without license and subsequent actions by Commissioner of Customs.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an importer of second-hand printing machines, challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Customs for reconsideration. The petitioner imported 209 machineries under specific conditions, but faced action from the Commissioner of Customs for alleged violations. The Commissioner imposed fines and penalties, leading to an appeal by the petitioner to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed a fresh consideration, referencing certain judgments. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal's interference was unwarranted as there was no appeal or cross-objection filed by the Commissioner against the portion of the order favoring the petitioner. The petitioner also raised concerns regarding the statutory provisions of appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act.

The Additional Solicitor General argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of alternative remedies. However, the Court held that the writ petition could be maintained, citing the petitioner's right to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court also referred to a Supreme Court judgment supporting this view.

Regarding the Tribunal's directions to the Commissioner, the Court held that such specific directions could not be legally given, as the original authority must exercise its judgment independently. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order on the remittal of 109 machineries and directed the Commissioner to proceed in accordance with the law without being influenced by the Tribunal's directions.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition and other related petitions, emphasizing that the Commissioner must decide on the matter independently and on merit, without being swayed by external directions. The Court did not award any costs in this case.