9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 832 - HC - CustomsRelease of detained consignments - confiscation of consignments under Section 111(I) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 - option to pay redemption fine of ₹ 3,50,000/- under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - imposition of penalty of ₹ 25,500/- and ₹ 90,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Air, Chennai not implemented by the respondent - respondent filed revision before the revisional authority - Held that - the decision of the case Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA would apply. The Hon ble Apex Court and this Court in various cases very categorically held that the order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) clearly shows that the petitioner has not committed any violation, therefore, they should implement the order of the Commissioner of Customs in a true letter and dispute. The petitioner is entitled to get release of the gold, since the long delay in release of the goods would, no doubt, reduce its potency and its market value would deteriorate to the detriment of the petitioner. There is nothing shown on behalf of the respondent to substantiate their claim that necessary steps had been taken to obtain interim order of stay against the order of the authority. Mere filing of the revision against the order of appellate authority would not empower the respondent to deny release of the goods in question and the respondent have not given any proper explanation as to why no stay order has been obtained against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) , even though the said order said to have been challenged by way of further appeal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to detention of the goods in question, which had been imported by the petitioner - petitioner entitled to get release of the goods - consignment to be released on payment of redemption fine and penalty - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Detention of goods by Customs. 2. Implementation of the appellate authority's order. 3. Filing and pendency of revision petitions. 4. Judicial discipline and compliance with appellate orders. 5. Entitlement of the petitioner to the release of goods. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Detention of Goods by Customs: The petitioner, upon arrival from Dubai, was intercepted by Customs at Chennai International Airport, leading to the detention of 400 grams of gold valued at ?9,97,224/-. The Joint Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods under Section 111(I) of the Customs Act and Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, allowing redemption upon payment of a fine of ?3,50,000/- and imposing penalties totaling ?1,15,500/-. 2. Implementation of the Appellate Authority's Order: The petitioner appealed against the Joint Commissioner’s order. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to ?2,00,000/- and the penalty to ?50,000/-. Despite the appellate order dated 24.08.2015, the respondent did not implement it, leading to the filing of the writ petition for mandamus to enforce the appellate order. 3. Filing and Pendency of Revision Petitions: The respondent claimed to have filed a revision petition under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, against the appellate order, which was pending. However, no proof of the revision petition being taken on file or any stay order was produced before the Court. The respondent argued that the petitioner should await the revisional authority's decision or approach it directly. 4. Judicial Discipline and Compliance with Appellate Orders: The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, stating that subordinate authorities must unreservedly follow appellate orders unless stayed by a competent court. Citing multiple precedents, including Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation and Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Krishna Sales (P) Ltd., the Court underscored that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay, and failure to implement appellate orders constitutes contempt of court. 5. Entitlement of the Petitioner to the Release of Goods: The Court noted the prolonged detention of goods without a stay order and the resultant deterioration in value, deeming it arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was entitled to the release of goods for re-export, subject to compliance with the conditions imposed by the appellate authority, including payment of the reduced redemption fine and penalty, and an undertaking to comply with the original order if the department succeeded in the revision. Conclusion: The Court directed the respondent to release the detained gold for re-export within two weeks, subject to the petitioner fulfilling the appellate conditions. Additionally, if no stay was granted in the revision petition, the main revision was to be disposed of within eight weeks. The writ petition was thus disposed of, ensuring compliance with judicial discipline and protecting the petitioner’s rights.
|
