Court rules against executive interference in pending cases, deems circulars illegal, upholds office memorandum.

The court held that executive instructions influencing pending adjudication were impermissible. The Circular directing adherence to CBIC views over Tribunal decisions was deemed illegal. The Office Memorandum by DGFT on gold coin classification was upheld. The court refrained from interfering with the Show Cause Notices, directing unbiased adjudication. The classification and exemption of imported gold coins were to be independently assessed. The writ petitions were disposed of, quashing specific portions of Circulars and Office Memoranda, and directing unbiased adjudication based on court findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Office Memorandum dated 16th February, 2018, issued by CBEC.
2. Validity of Circular dated 31st May, 2019, issued by CBIC.
3. Validity of Office Memorandum dated 6th September, 2017, issued by DGFT.
4. Validity of Show Cause Notices dated 15th July, 2019, and 19th July, 2019.
5. Classification and exemption of imported gold coins under the Customs Tariff and FTP.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Office Memorandum dated 16th February, 2018, issued by CBEC:
The Office Memorandum dated 16th February, 2018, issued by the CBEC, was found to be an impermissible attempt to influence the impartial adjudication of the Show Cause Notices issued to the petitioner and Mink. The court held that such executive instructions, pronouncing on the merits of issues pending before adjudicating authorities, were beyond the powers conferred by Section 151A of the Customs Act. Consequently, the Office Memorandum was quashed to the extent it sought to opine on the classification of gold coins and their eligibility for exemption.

2. Validity of Circular dated 31st May, 2019, issued by CBIC:
The Circular dated 31st May, 2019, was deemed objectionable as it directed field formations to deal with consignments pending clearance at ports and airports in accordance with the CBIC's view, rather than the Tribunal's decisions. This was found to be in direct violation of judicial discipline and Section 151A of the Customs Act. The court declared this direction illegal and emphasized that adjudicating authorities must follow the Tribunal's decisions unless stayed by a higher authority.

3. Validity of Office Memorandum dated 6th September, 2017, issued by DGFT:
The Office Memorandum dated 6th September, 2017, issued by the DGFT, was upheld as it merely reiterated the statutory position regarding the classification of gold coins under Heading 7118 9000 of the ITC(HS) and their import being subject to RBI guidelines. The court found no reason to interfere with this Office Memorandum, stating that it correctly set out the legal position.

4. Validity of Show Cause Notices dated 15th July, 2019, and 19th July, 2019:
The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations in the Show Cause Notices, emphasizing that such issues should be thrashed out before the competent adjudicating authority. The court clarified that it would not interfere with adjudicatory proceedings emanating from a Show Cause Notice issued by a competent authority under a fiscal statute unless the authority was incompetent to issue the notice. The prayers for setting aside the Show Cause Notices were rejected, and the adjudication was directed to proceed uninfluenced by the invalidated portions of the Circulars and Office Memoranda.

5. Classification and exemption of imported gold coins under the Customs Tariff and FTP:
The petitioner had classified the imported gold coins under Sub-Heading 7114 1910 and claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification 152/2009-Cus. However, the Revenue contended that the gold coins should be classified under Sub-Heading 7118 9000, making them subject to RBI guidelines. The court noted that the classification and exemption issues would have to be assessed on their merits by the adjudicating authorities, uninfluenced by the invalidated executive instructions. The court clarified that the adjudicating authorities must independently examine the applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 6th September, 2017, and the merits of the Show Cause Notices.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions:
- Circular dated 9th September, 2019, was quashed to the extent of its directions, limiting its effect to conveying information about pending appeals.
- Para 8 of the Show Cause Notices was quashed, and the adjudication was directed to proceed uninfluenced by the invalidated portions.
- The Office Memorandum dated 6th September, 2017, was upheld, but its applicability to the petitioner's case was to be assessed on merits.
- The Office Memorandum dated 16th February, 2018, was quashed to the extent it sought to opine on the classification and exemption eligibility of gold coins.
- The prayers for setting aside the Show Cause Notices were rejected, and the adjudication was directed to proceed in accordance with the court's findings and observations.

---