2016 (5) TMI 1194 - HC - Customs

Validity of order passed by writ court - Clearance of goods covered by the commercial invoice and consignments of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars also forthwith lying in the port of Chennai - Held that - the proposition which has been proposed by the writ petitioner that till the contempt is purged the appeal against the writ petition cannot be heard has no merit and therefore we reject the said preliminary objection and issue notice to the respondents on merit as well as on I.A.No.5511/2015 I.A.No.6418/2015 and 6425/2015. Appellants are directed to supply the copy of memo of appeal to Shri V.K. Jain learned counsel for the respondent No.1 so that he may seek further instructions in the matter within a period of 3 days from today. Looking to the fact that in contempt proceedings order has been passed and in case if stay is not granted against the appellants then the impugned order will be executed and both the writ appeals of the department will be rendered as infructuous apart of facing contempt by the writ court. - Interim relief and stay granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.9169/2014.
2. Preliminary objection raised regarding compliance with court orders.
3. Jurisdiction of the writ petition filed at Indore Bench of M.P. High Court.
4. Interpretation of circular dated 7.11.2014 regarding import of goods.
5. Locus standi of intervenor to challenge the writ court's order.
6. Consideration of contempt proceedings and grant of interim relief.

Analysis:

1. The High Court heard intra court appeals challenging the order dated 30.9.2015 in W.P.No.9169/2014, where the writ court directed the clearance of goods covered by a commercial invoice dated 4.9.2014 and consignments of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars at the port of Chennai. The court partly allowed the writ petition based on the non-retrospective applicability of a circular dated 07.11.2014 to the petitioner's consignment, emphasizing the need for compliance with the law.

2. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the non-compliance with court orders by the respondent, leading to a contempt petition. The respondent argued that until the contempt is purged, the appellants have no right of audience. However, the court rejected this objection, emphasizing the importance of enforcing the rule of law while allowing the appeals to be heard on merit.

3. The jurisdiction of the writ petition filed at the Indore Bench of M.P. High Court was questioned, contending that no cause of action arose for filing the petition. The respondent argued that the writ court misinterpreted a judgment of the Bombay High Court, allowing the writ petition based on the clarificatory nature of the circular dated 7.11.2014.

4. The interpretation of the circular dated 7.11.2014 regarding the import of goods was crucial in the case. The respondent argued that the circular did not prohibit the import of goods and was clarificatory in nature, operating from the date of import. The court considered the respondent's submissions and allowed the appeals to proceed on merit.

5. The locus standi of the intervenor to challenge the writ court's order was questioned, citing a decision of the Apex Court. The court considered this argument along with other submissions and issued notices to the respondents for further proceedings.

6. Contempt proceedings and the grant of interim relief were also discussed, with the court emphasizing the need to balance enforcement of court orders with the right to challenge orders on merit. Interim relief was granted to stay the operation of the impugned order until the next hearing date, considering the duration the goods had been lying at Chennai Air Port.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment delivered by the High Court, addressing the arguments presented by the parties and the court's decisions on each issue.