2016 (12) TMI 828 - HC - Customs

Court Orders Release of Detained Gold for Re-export

The court held that the respondent's failure to implement the appellate order without obtaining a stay was unjustified. The petitioner was entitled to the ... Release of detained goods - issuance of a writ of Mandamus - case of the petitioner is that though the order of the appeal was delivered to him on 30.04.2015, the respondent has not implemented the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Air, Chennai - Held that: - The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in various cases very categorically held that the order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) clearly shows that the petitioner has not committed any violation, therefore, they should implement the order of the Commissioner of Customs in a true letter and dispute. Therefore, in my considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get release of the gold, since the long delay in release of the goods would, no doubt, reduce its potency and its market value would deteriorate to the detriment of the petitioner. In this case, there is nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondent to substantiate their claim that necessary steps had been taken to obtain interim order of stay against the order of the authority dated 24.04.2015. I am also convinced that mere filing of the revision against the order of appellate authority would not empower the respondent to deny release of the goods in question and the respondent have not given any proper explanation as to why no stay order has been obtained against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 24.04.2015, even though the said order said to have been challenged by way of further appeal. Therefore, in my considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to detention of the goods in question, which had been imported by the petitioner, hence, the petitioner is entitled to get release of the goods. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods (gold) for the purpose of re-exporting subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) i.e., payment of redemption fine for re-export and personal penalty and also giving an undertaking to comply with the Order in Original, in the event the Department succeeds in the revision. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues Involved:1. Detention and confiscation of goods by Customs.2. Non-implementation of the appellate authority's order.3. Filing of revision and stay petition by the respondent.4. Judicial discipline and compliance with appellate orders.5. Legal precedents supporting the petitioner's case.Detailed Analysis:1. Detention and Confiscation of Goods by Customs:The petitioner, upon arrival from Dubai, was intercepted by Customs at Chennai International Airport. The Customs authorities inventoried and detained 174 grams of gold valued at Rs. 4,47,692/-. The Joint Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the case, confiscating the goods under Section 111(d)(e)(I)(m) & (o) of the Customs Act and Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The petitioner was allowed to redeem and re-export the goods upon payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 45,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. Non-Implementation of the Appellate Authority's Order:The petitioner appealed against the Joint Commissioner's order, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the absolute confiscation, ordering the redemption of goods on 24.04.2015. Despite the order being delivered to the petitioner on 30.04.2015, the respondent did not implement it. The petitioner argued that the respondent had neither filed a revision nor obtained a stay against the appellate order, thus failing to comply with judicial discipline.3. Filing of Revision and Stay Petition by the Respondent:The respondent contended that a revision along with a stay petition under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, was filed before the revisional authority, which was pending. The respondent provided a list of dates for filing revisions in 14 cases, including the present one, arguing that the petitioner should have approached the revisional authority or awaited its decision. The court noted that no proof of the revision being taken on file or notice issued to the petitioner was provided.4. Judicial Discipline and Compliance with Appellate Orders:The court emphasized that once the appellate authority passes an order, the respondent must comply unless a stay is obtained. The principles of judicial discipline mandate that orders of higher appellate authorities be followed unreservedly by subordinate authorities. The court cited several legal precedents, including Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation, which criticized the failure of revenue officers to implement appellate orders, causing undue harassment and chaos in tax administration.5. Legal Precedents Supporting the Petitioner's Case:The court referenced multiple judgments supporting the petitioner's contention that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay, and goods should be released as per the appellate order unless a stay is obtained. These included:- Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation: Emphasized the importance of following appellate orders unless suspended by a competent court.- W.P(MD) No.24495 of 2011 (M/s Supra Bio Tech vs. The Chief Commissioner of Customs): Held that filing an appeal without a stay does not justify non-implementation of appellate orders.- Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Krishna Sales (P) Ltd.: Stated that authorities must obtain a stay or appropriate direction to refuse implementation of appellate orders.- W.P.No.9284 of 2006 (Pushpanjali Silks Private Ltd. vs. CC of Customs and another): Directed authorities to implement appellate orders and release detained goods.Conclusion:The court concluded that the respondent's failure to implement the appellate order without obtaining a stay was unjustified. The petitioner was entitled to the release of the detained gold for re-export, subject to compliance with the conditions imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The court directed the respondent to release the goods within two weeks and dispose of the revision petition within eight weeks if no stay was obtained.