1996 (6) TMI 88 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in implementing the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
2. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Non-compliance with the direction of the Tribunal by the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Release of goods based on the order of the Supreme Court.
5. Requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee by the writ petitioner.
6. Allegations made in the writ petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The writ petitioner sought a direction for the release of 16,000 pieces of 'F.K. Brand' Pillow Block Bearings against provisional assessment and furnishing of P.D. Bond without further delay, following an order by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The goods were imported in 1994, and the Commissioner of Customs later imposed penalties and confirmed confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with a directive for disposal within three months, which was not adhered to. The petitioner requested an interim order for release based on a previous Supreme Court order.

2. The Commissioner of Customs was directed to release the goods upon payment of customs duty as per the Bill of Entry valuation and furnishing of a bond for any duty on a value exceeding the declared amount. The Customs Authority suggested the writ petitioner furnish a bank guarantee, but the court held that the petitioner was entitled to release the goods as per the Supreme Court order due to non-compliance with the Tribunal's directive by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. The court disposed of the application by directing the completion of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority within three weeks and the release of goods upon payment of customs duty and furnishing of a bond. The court clarified that the application was decided based on the records, as no affidavit in opposition was filed, and the allegations in the petition were not deemed admitted by the respondents.

4. The writ petitioner's counsel raised concerns regarding the Adjudicating Authority's non-compliance with the Tribunal's directive, suggesting that strictures should be imposed. However, the court declined to impose any strictures on the Adjudicating Authority, considering the circumstances of the case. All parties were instructed to act on a xerox signed copy of the order.