2016 (7) TMI 1162 - HC - Customs

Court orders return of confiscated gold jewellery to petitioners upon payment of fines and penalties

The court directed the respondents to implement the Commissioner (Appeals) orders regarding confiscated gold jewellery and penalties imposed on the ... Implementation of appellate order pending departmental revision - return of seized goods subject to conditions - execution of bond as security for production in event of successful revision - effect of absence of stay or modification on appellate orderImplementation of appellate order pending departmental revision - effect of absence of stay or modification on appellate order - return of seized goods subject to conditions - execution of bond as security for production in event of successful revision - Direction to implement the Commissioner (Appeals) orders directing return of seized jewellery, notwithstanding departmental revision applications, subject to specified conditions. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the petitioners' appeals and directed return of the jewels by orders dated 30.9.2015, which have not been reversed, modified or stayed. Although the Department dispatched revision papers to the Revisional Authority in May 2016 and the Review Cell records receipt of the appellate orders on 3.2.2016, no stay was obtained and there was an unexplained delay in filing revisions. In these circumstances the High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to direct implementation of the appellate orders forthwith, while protecting the Department's interest by making compliance conditional on payment of the fine and penalty, if any, ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), and by requiring execution of a bond to produce the jewellery before the Department in the event the revision applications are allowed. The Court fixed a limited time for compliance. [Paras 6, 7, 8]The second respondent is directed to return the jewels forthwith within three weeks subject to payment of fine/penalty ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and execution of a bond to produce the jewellery if the Revisional Authority allows the revision.Final Conclusion: Writ petitions disposed by directing immediate implementation of the Commissioner (Appeals) orders for return of the seized jewellery subject to payment of fine/penalty as ordered and execution of a bond; compliance to be effected within three weeks; no costs. Issues:1. Direction sought to implement orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscated gold jewellery and penalty imposition.Analysis:The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction for the first respondent to implement orders passed by the third respondent. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners regarding the confiscation of gold jewellery and imposition of penalties. The Adjudicating Officer passed an order confiscating the jewels and imposing penalties. The petitioners appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeals on 30.9.2015, directing the return of jewels and imposing a penalty of &8377; 10,000/- on each petitioner. Since this order was not implemented, the petitioners approached the court through the writ petitions.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents informed the court that the Department had filed revision applications challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) orders before the Joint Secretary (Revision Application) in May 2016. The Department received the Commissioner (Appeals) orders on 3.2.2016. However, no steps were taken to file revisions until May 2016. The court noted that the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been reversed, modified, or stayed. Therefore, the court found it appropriate to issue a direction to the respondents to implement the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, subject to certain conditions.Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the second respondent to return the jewels in question promptly, provided the petitioners paid any fines and penalties ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and executed a bond to produce the jewellery if the revision applications were allowed. The respondents were given three weeks to comply with the court's direction. No costs were awarded, and the miscellaneous petitions were closed.