Finality of customs adjudication bars reopening, secured-debt priority cannot defeat customs recovery, and instalment relief remains discretionary.

A concluded customs adjudication could not be reopened after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, as the matter attained finality inter partes and a later contrary tribunal view could not displace it. The plea that secured debts had priority over crown debt also failed because that principle does not permit a defaulter to resist payment of statutory customs dues. On instalments, the Court held that relief under the departmental circular lay within the competent authority's discretion, not the writ court's direct grant, and directed expeditious consideration of the petitioner's representation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court attracted the doctrine of merger and precluded reopening of the customs adjudication; (ii) whether the petitioner could resist recovery of customs dues on the ground that secured debts had priority over crown debt; and (iii) whether the Court should itself grant instalments or direct consideration of the representation seeking instalment payment under the circular.

Issue (i): whether dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court attracted the doctrine of merger and precluded reopening of the customs adjudication.

Analysis: The appeal against the CESTAT order had been carried to the Supreme Court under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was dismissed. Once that appellate route was exhausted, the lis attained finality inter partes. A later view of another Tribunal Bench could not reopen the concluded matter or displace the binding effect of the Supreme Court's dismissal for the parties.

Conclusion: The challenge to the underlying customs demand was not liable to be reopened and was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner could resist recovery of customs dues on the ground that secured debts had priority over crown debt.

Analysis: The principle that crown debt does not prevail over secured creditors operates in the context of competing claims between creditors and secured interests. It does not enable a defaulter to withhold payment of statutory customs dues on the plea that it still owes money to banks and financial institutions. The cited principle could not be used to defeat recovery of customs liability.

Conclusion: The objection based on priority of secured debts was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the Court should itself grant instalments or direct consideration of the representation seeking instalment payment under the circular.

Analysis: The circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs vested discretion in the competent authority to grant instalments. Such discretion could not be exercised directly by the Court in writ proceedings. Since the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the Chief Commissioner, the proper course was to require consideration of that representation in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The Court declined to grant instalments itself and directed expeditious disposal of the representation by the Chief Commissioner.

Final Conclusion: The substantive challenge to recovery failed, but limited relief was granted by requiring administrative consideration of the request for instalment payment.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded appellate determination attaining finality cannot be reopened on the basis of a later contrary view, and a defaulter cannot invoke the priority of secured creditors to resist statutory recovery of customs dues; instalment relief under an administrative circular lies within the discretion of the competent authority.

---