2018 (8) TMI 1410 - HC - Customs

Release of confiscated goods - import of used Digital Multifunction Printers/Devices - The respondent challenged Ext.P9 order before this Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. PARAG DOMESTIC APPLIANCES 2018 (3) TMI 1560 - KERALA HIGH COURT and the said appeal was disposed of by this Court - petitioner submits that Customs Appeal No.19 of 2017 was disposed of by this Court on 14.3.2018 and as such, had the respondent been vigilant, the decision therein could have been challenged by now. Held that - The registry reports that the respondent has obtained certified copy of the judgment in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. PARAG DOMESTIC APPLIANCES 2018 (3) TMI 1560 - KERALA HIGH COURT - the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to give effect to the decision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. PARAG DOMESTIC APPLIANCES, if the respondent does not get favourable interim orders from the Apex Court on or before 20.5.2018.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Ext.P5 order before the Tribunal.
2. Modification of Ext.P5 order by the Tribunal.
3. Allegations of non-compliance with Ext.P9 order.
4. Challenge to Ext.P9 order before the High Court.
5. Disposal of Customs Appeal No.19 of 2017 by the High Court.
6. Subsequent challenge to the High Court decision before the Apex Court.
7. Petition seeking directions for release of goods as per High Court decision.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner imported used Digital Multifunction Printers/Devices into India, which were confiscated under the Customs Act based on Ext.P5 order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 order before the Tribunal, which modified the order through Ext.P9, directing the release of goods upon payment of redemption fine, duty, and penalty.

2. The respondent failed to comply with Ext.P9 order, leading to the filing of a writ petition by the petitioner, seeking directions for the release of goods as per the Tribunal's modified order. The High Court noted that the respondent challenged Ext.P9 order in Customs Appeal No.19 of 2017, which was disposed of along with another appeal on 14.3.2018.

3. The High Court's judgment in Customs Appeal Nos.18 and 19 of 2017 directed the release of goods upon payment of specified amounts, with provisions for further actions by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) if necessary. The Court allowed the appeals partly, addressing various legal aspects in favor of the importer.

4. The respondent expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court's decision and indicated intentions to challenge it before the Apex Court. However, the petitioner argued that the respondent's delay in challenging the decision indicated a lack of vigilance on their part.

5. Considering the subsequent developments, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondent to comply with the decision in Customs Appeal No.19 of 2017 unless favorable interim orders were obtained from the Apex Court by a specified date.

6. The judgment underscores the legal proceedings surrounding the release of imported goods, the role of appellate authorities like the Tribunal, and the implications of challenging court decisions at higher levels. It highlights the need for timely compliance with court orders and the potential consequences of delayed legal actions in matters concerning customs and excise regulations.