2014 (12) TMI 900 - AT - Customs

Tribunal clarifies authority's role in implementing laws, directs error rectification in Final Order

3f Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax - GUNTUR

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request for implementation of the order, clarified the jurisdiction of authorities in implementing laws, and ... Appropriate forum to be High Court or Tribunal - Direction to be made for implementation of Final Order by Tribunal or not - The Tribunal had earlier taken a view that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 21/02 – Held that:- If a Statutory Authority does not implement the order of the Tribunal, the remedy does not lie in coming to Tribunal again - the remedy lies in approaching jurisdictional High Court by filing a writ petition – Tribunal cannot order the authority implementing the matters relating to food adulteration and direct that authority to allow the consignment to be imported, when they take a stand that according to the Act, such a consignment cannot be allowed to be imported - once the order is passed by this Tribunal, the Tribunal becomes functus-offficio – assessee have failed to make out a case for interference – Decided against assessee. Rectification application – Typographical errors – Held that:- Assessee earlier pointed out three typographical errors - however, during the hearing the assessee submits that there is one more error which has not been mentioned in the application – thus, assessee is given more time for going through the order and find out more typographical errors if any and submit one application. Issues:1. Implementation of Tribunal's Final Order2. Contempt of Tribunal's order by Customs Department3. Jurisdiction to order implementation of matters relating to food adulteration4. Rectification of mistakes in Final OrderIssue 1: Implementation of Tribunal's Final OrderThe appellant sought implementation of the Tribunal's Final Order No. 20267/2014, which granted them benefits under Notification No. 21/02. The appellant submitted the order to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the Respondent Commissioner for releasing the cargo. However, the Food Analyst stated that the consignment cannot be imported under the FSS Act 2006, as he was not a party in the appeal. The Tribunal held that if a Statutory Authority does not implement the order, the remedy lies in approaching the High Court through a writ petition. The Tribunal cannot direct the authority to allow the consignment when it goes against the law. Each authority must use its judgment and discretion to implement the law. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request for direction to implement the order.Issue 2: Contempt of Tribunal's order by Customs DepartmentThe appellant alleged contempt of the Tribunal's order by the Customs Department for addressing the Food Analyst, who then refused to allow the consignment. The Tribunal clarified that the Customs Department's actions were within their jurisdiction to implement laws related to food adulteration. The Tribunal emphasized that the authority must follow the law's spirit and letter, and the Tribunal cannot interfere in such matters. The appellant's request for the Food Analyst to be impleaded was rejected as the Tribunal was functus-officio after passing the order.Issue 3: Jurisdiction to order implementation of matters relating to food adulterationThe Tribunal emphasized that each authority under the relevant Act is expected to use their judgment and discretion to implement the law. The Tribunal cannot direct an authority to allow a consignment if it goes against the law. The Tribunal stated that decisions of High Courts and Tribunal orders do not give the Tribunal the authority to direct an authority not party to the appeal. The appellant's remedy lies under the law related to the issue.Issue 4: Rectification of mistakes in Final OrderThe appellant filed an application seeking rectification of typographical errors in the Final Order. The Tribunal directed the Authorized Representative to identify all errors and submit one application for rectification. The Tribunal disposed of the applications, stating that the typographical errors, while needing correction, did not seriously prejudice the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's request for implementation of the order, clarified the jurisdiction of authorities in implementing laws, and directed rectification of typographical errors in the Final Order.