2017 (7) TMI 706 - HC - Customs

Revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act - Validity of order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - Confiscation of gold - Held that - reliance placed in the case of M/s NVR Forgings Versus Union of India and others 2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , where it was held that the order in appeal as well as revisionary order had been passed by the officers of the same rank which is not permissible as per law. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside - respondent is directed to release the gold to the petitioner within one week from the date on which the petitioner furnishes a bond - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Implementation of order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 13.01.2017.
2. Request for release of gold by petitioner following rejection of department's appeal.
3. Revision filed by department under Section 129DD of the Customs Act.
4. Legal position regarding revisional authority's jurisdiction based on a previous case.
5. Disposal of writ petition directing release of gold bars/jewelry.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner sought implementation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 13.01.2017, which held that confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was not sustainable as the gold was declared in the Customs Declaration Card, thus not liable for confiscation under Section 111(l). The Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 12.08.2015 and rejected the department's appeal.

Issue 2: The petitioner submitted a representation to release the gold as the department's appeal had been rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), but the respondent had not considered it. The department argued that a revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act had been filed, and a notice of revision had been served on the petitioner, requesting to keep the Commissioner's order in abeyance.

Issue 3: The respondent department had filed a revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order, seeking a review. The legal position regarding the revisional authority's jurisdiction was discussed, citing a previous case where the revision by the Central Government was challenged due to the revisional authority being of the same rank as the officer who passed the original order.

Issue 4: Referring to the legal position established in the previous case, the High Court directed the respondent to release the gold bars/jewelry to the petitioner within one week of payment of redemption fine and penalty, along with furnishing a bond securing the department's interest in case of success before the revisional authority. The court emphasized the need to protect the revenue's interest while ensuring the petitioner's compliance.

Issue 5: The writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent to release the gold within a specified timeframe upon fulfillment of conditions, allowing the department to pursue the revision as per the law. The court highlighted the importance of balancing the interests of all parties involved and ensuring compliance with the Customs Act and related rules.