2003 (11) TMI 509 - AT - Customs

Judge allows more time for Revenue dept to comply with Tribunal's order, stresses case-by-case evaluation

The judge granted additional time to the Revenue department to comply with the Tribunal's order for the release of seized goods, emphasizing that the High ... Appellate Tribunal’s order - Non-implementation of Issues: Compliance with Tribunal's order for release of seized goodsComprehensive Analysis:The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application disposed of by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, instructing the Revenue to implement the Tribunal's order within a specified timeframe. The matter arose when the Respondent, represented by Shri K. Chatterjee, submitted a letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs releasing the seized goods, but later received communication indicating a stay on releasing goods due to writ petitions filed by other appellants from the same case. The Appellant, through Shri K. Chatterjee, argued that since no writ petition was filed against Shri Rajesh Kr. Jaiswal, the stay order on other appellants should not affect the present case. The Appellant's representative contended that the Tribunal's order should be implemented irrespective of the situation with other appellants. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by Shri T.K. Kar, relied on a letter from the Commissioner of Customs stating that due to the High Court's directions on other appellants, the present appellant's case should also be defended on similar grounds.The judge, Smt. Archana Wadhwa, critically analyzed the situation and noted that no writ petition had been filed against Shri Rajesh Kr. Jaiswal. The judge emphasized that the High Court's orders regarding other appellants should not automatically impact the present case, especially when there was no stay order in place for the Appellant. Given the absence of a stay order and the Tribunal's clear directive to the Revenue for implementation, the judge granted additional time to the department to comply with the order and report back on the progress by a specified date. The judge's decision was based on the principle that each case should be considered on its own merits and that the Tribunal's orders must be followed unless there are specific legal grounds for deviation. The judgment underscores the importance of individual case assessments and adherence to judicial directives, highlighting the need for procedural fairness and compliance with legal mandates in such matters.