Binding precedent on customs recovery rules led to quashing of property attachment under the Customs Act.

An attachment order over a leased property under the Customs Act recovery provisions could not be sustained because the issue was already covered by an earlier majority decision of the same Bench on the same statutory mechanism. In the absence of any contrary ruling from a higher forum, that binding view was followed, with the result that the legal foundation for attachment and recovery from the appellant's property failed. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order directing attachment of the appellant's leased property under section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulter for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995 could be sustained.

Analysis: The dispute was found to be identical to an earlier decision of the same Bench dealing with the same statutory provisions and the same recovery mechanism. As no contrary decision of a higher forum was brought to notice, the earlier majority view was followed. The consequence was that the foundation for attachment and recovery from the appellant's property did not survive.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the issue is already covered by a binding majority decision on the same statutory recovery provision and no higher forum has overruled it, the same view must be followed and the attachment order cannot be sustained.

---