2020 (12) TMI 709 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Approval granted to the appellant under Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962 - revocation of approval given to them as custodial of imported goods under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Considering the livelihood of the appellant is affected, applications for early hearing of the appeals are allowed. As the time sought by the ld. AR to file the cross objection, the request for adjournment of the matter is accepted. The matter is adjourned with the direction to ld. AR to mention the matter after filing the cross objection. No coercive action shall be taken against the appellant till further orders. Registry is directed to list the matter on top priority in next Division Bench after receiving the cross objection from the respondent. It is pertinent to mention that after listing the matter before the next Division Bench, the appellant shall not seek adjournment in any circumstances.

Summary

Issues:
1. Early hearing of appeals and stay application in Appeal No. C/60338/2020.
2. Revocation of approval under Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962 and as custodial of imported goods under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Adjournment sought by the respondent for filing cross objection.
4. Direction to prevent coercive action against the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed applications for early hearing of appeals and a stay application in Appeal No. C/60338/2020 due to the revocation of approval granted under Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962, and as custodial of imported goods under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order affecting the livelihood of the appellant and its employees was passed by the Adjudicating authority on 17.09.2020. As there was no regular Division Bench at the regional bench in Chandigarh during the relevant period, a Division Bench was constituted for the current week from 23.11.2020 to 27.11.2020. The appellant's applications for early hearing were allowed considering the serious impact on their livelihood.

2. The Revenue's representative sought an adjournment as the appeal was served on the respondent on 26.10.2020, and they intended to file a cross objection within 45 days of receiving the appeal papers. The appellant's counsel did not object to the adjournment but requested that no coercive action be taken against the appellant during this period. The Tribunal heard both parties and accepted the request for adjournment to allow the respondent time to file the cross objection.

3. The Tribunal directed that no coercive action should be taken against the appellant until further orders. The Registry was instructed to prioritize listing the matter before the next Division Bench after receiving the cross objection from the respondent. It was emphasized that after listing the matter, the appellant should not seek adjournment under any circumstances. The order was pronounced on 25/11/2020, providing clarity on the course of action to be followed in the case.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the appellant's requests for early hearing and stay, the revocation of approvals under the Customs Act, the adjournment sought by the respondent, and the directions to prevent coercive action against the appellant.