2017 (8) TMI 431 - HC - Customs

Foreign currencies released upon fine payment, petitioner secures Revenue interest. Precedents upheld.

Jang Bahadur Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs

The court directed the respondent to release the foreign currencies upon payment of a fine, with the petitioner executing a bond to secure the Revenue's ... Absolute Confiscation - Foreign Currency of 13500 Euros and Indian Currency of ₹ 10,00,000/- - The Appellate Commissioner upheld the absolute confiscation of Indian Currency and passed an order on 25.05.2016, by rejecting the order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) of converting of absolute confiscation to allowance of confiscation on redemption - whether the respondent can refuse to implement the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), on the ground that they have filed a revision before the Central Government? - Held that: - The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of NVR Forgings Vs. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] considering the validity of an order passed by the Revisional Authority of the Central Government in the Cadre of Joint Secretary to Government testing the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and while considering the validity of such an order, held that the cadre of Joint Secretary to the Government of India is equivalent to the cadre of Commissioner of customs (Appeals) and therefore, the Revisional Authority cannot sit in judgment against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - non-implementing order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the ground that the revision was pending, cannot be countenanced. The petitioner having succeeded before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), cannot be directed to file Bank guarantee for the entire amount and the Revenue, which has filed the revision, having lost before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), it would be sufficient, if a bond is executed by the petitioner to secure the interest - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:Implementation of Order-in-Appeal regarding seizure of foreign and Indian currency, refusal to implement order due to pending revision, safeguarding revenue's interest.Analysis:Issue 1: Implementation of Order-in-AppealThe petitioner sought implementation of an Order-in-Appeal regarding the seizure of foreign and Indian currency at the airport. The Customs Officers confiscated the currencies under specific sections of the Customs Act and imposed penalties. The appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) resulted in partial relief, allowing redemption of foreign currency on payment of a fine. The petitioner approached the court seeking enforcement of the appellate order.Issue 2: Refusal to Implement Order due to Pending RevisionThe respondent contended that the Revenue had filed a revision before the Central Government against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The respondent argued that releasing the foreign currency would jeopardize the Revenue's interest. However, the High Court cited a precedent from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, emphasizing that the Revisional Authority cannot challenge the Commissioner's order, as both hold equivalent ranks. The Supreme Court also dismissed a Special Leave Petition and a Review Petition, affirming the Commissioner's authority.Issue 3: Safeguarding Revenue's InterestThe court addressed the concern of safeguarding the Revenue's interest while implementing the appellate order. It noted that the foreign currency was allowed redemption based on specific considerations, and the Revenue's revision had been unsuccessful. To ensure the Revenue's interest, the court directed the petitioner to execute a bond for the full value of the foreign currency. If the Revenue succeeds in the pending revision, the bond may be encashed within a specified period. This approach aimed to balance the petitioner's rights with the Revenue's interests.In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to release the foreign currencies upon payment of a fine, with the petitioner executing a bond to secure the Revenue's interest. This decision aligned with legal precedents and aimed to uphold the appellate order while safeguarding the Revenue's concerns.