9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 665 - HC - CustomsSmuggling - Seeking release of seized currency - before the goods could be released implementing the Tribunal's Order, final order of Confiscation was passed - HELD THAT - Reliance placed on the judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in case of TOPLAND ENGINES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2005 (7) TMI 112 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT in which the Division Bench has held that once the order of Tribunal attained finality in absence of any challenge to its order, issue of show cause notice by Department refusing to implement Tribunal's order is not legal. In the present case, the subordinate authorities have not denied the compliance of order passed by the Tribunal for provisional release but before the goods could be released, the final order of confiscation has been passed which is an appealable order, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be complied with. Since, the petitioner has suppressed the fact of passing of final order of confiscation which was well within his knowledge and filed this present petition seeking provisional release of the goods, the cost of Rs. 25,000/- is hereby imposed on the petitioner - Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include non-compliance with a final order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the provisional release of seized currency, the acceptance of the CESTAT final order by the respondent, and the subsequent passing of a final order of confiscation by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. Non-Compliance with CESTAT Final Order: The petitioner filed a petition due to the respondent's failure to comply with the Final Order No.50707/2022 passed by CESTAT, New Delhi. The petitioner, M/s Rudras Overseas (Company), imported Nutrition Supplements and paid custom duty. The goods were detained and currency seized during an investigation. The CESTAT set aside an earlier order rejecting the petitioner's request for provisional release. The petitioner sought the release of the currency following the CESTAT order, but the Principal Commissioner of Customs later issued a final order for the confiscation of the currency. Provisional Release of Seized Currency: The petitioner made representations for the release of the seized currency, citing the acceptance of the CESTAT final order by the respondent. The petitioner argued that the order passed by CESTAT had attained finality, relying on judgments such as Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. The respondent, however, contended that the final order of confiscation had been passed, making the provisional release request invalid. Acceptance of CESTAT Final Order: The respondent argued that the Principal Commissioner of Customs had ordered the confiscation of the currency under the Customs Act, 1962, after the CESTAT final order was accepted. The respondent stated that the petitioner could appeal the final order of confiscation to CESTAT, emphasizing that the provisional release request could not be considered after the final adjudication. Judgment and Dismissal of Writ Petition: The court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the petitioner had failed to disclose the final order of confiscation passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner for suppressing this information. The court highlighted the importance of complying with final orders and the availability of appeal mechanisms in such cases. Please note that the judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia and Hon'ble Shri Justice Pranay Verma of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
|
