1999 (7) TMI 182 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by Customs authorities and provisional release against bond.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.
3. Bank guarantee for release of seized goods and request for discharge.
4. Reference to Bombay High Court judgment and Rule 41 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.
5. Tribunal's power to make orders and directions.
6. Appellants' approach to the Tribunal and dismissal of the application.

Analysis:

1. The case involved goods seized by Customs authorities, provisionally released to importers against a bond backed by a bank guarantee pending proceedings. The Commissioner held the goods liable for confiscation and imposed a penalty on the importers. The Tribunal waived pre-deposit of the penalty and stayed its recovery. The importers requested discharge of the bank guarantee, which the Commissioner did not respond to, leading to the application seeking directions for discharge.

2. The bank guarantee was filed by the importers as per an agreement with the Commissioner for provisional release of seized goods. The goods were later adjudged liable for confiscation by the Collector, who also imposed a penalty. The Tribunal noted that the bank guarantee terms were not before them, indicating the obligation for discharge lies with the Commissioner, as the filing was not under the Customs Act's obligation.

3. The appellant referred to a Bombay High Court judgment and Rule 41 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, arguing for the Tribunal's power to make orders. However, the Tribunal found the cited judgment dissimilar as the circumstances favored the applicant in that case, unlike the present one where the Commissioner's order was against the appellants.

4. Rule 41 empowers the Tribunal to make necessary orders to give effect to its decisions or prevent abuse of process. The Tribunal concluded that the present situation did not fall under the rule's purview. It also noted the appellants' haste in approaching the Tribunal without first seeking resolution with the Commissioner or Chief Commissioner.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating the appellants could file a separate application for early hearing. It highlighted the need for logical steps like seeking interviews with relevant authorities before resorting to the appellate forum, indicating the importance of exhausting other avenues before approaching the Tribunal.