2021 (1) TMI 195 - HC - Customs

High Court clarifies Customs order, directs release of goods, emphasizes compliance with previous directions

The High Court addressed a challenge to the Commissioner of Customs' order, emphasizing compliance with its previous directions for releasing goods and ... Release of petitioner's goods - warehousing of the goods under section 49 of the Customs Act - case of petitioner is that petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions for release of goods but because of warehousing of the goods under section 49 of the Customs Act, petitioner is required to pay a substantial amount to the customs authority - HELD THAT:- The view taken by respondent No.2 that the decision of this court while directing release of the goods was prima facie is not correct. When the High Court had directed release of the goods forthwith, it is beyond comprehension as to how a lower appellate authority can nullify such direction by ordering absolute confiscation of such goods. It is not only unacceptable but contumacious as well which aspect we may deal with at a later stage. The operation of the order dated 24th December, 2020 is stayed until further orders - List on 27th January, 2021, on which date Mr. Jetly shall inform the court about compliance of today’s order. Issues:Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai (Zone-1) - Contravention of High Court's order directing release of goods - Stay of operation of the order dated 24th December, 2020 - Compliance with High Court's directions.Analysis:The High Court addressed the challenge made in a writ petition against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai (Zone-1). The Court previously directed the release of goods covered by specific bills of entry, emphasizing compliance with terms and conditions of the original order. The Court refrained from expressing final views on the legality of the original order but focused on the justification for withholding the goods. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to release the goods covered by the mentioned bills of entry. The Court also allowed two writ petitions, refraining from imposing costs.In an interim application, the Court noted an omission in the judgment regarding a prayer made by the applicant in one of the writ petitions. The Court modified its previous judgment to include the omitted prayer, directing the release of goods covered by additional bills of entry upon payment of necessary dues. The Court considered the fairness of the respondents' submissions regarding the Supreme Court proceedings and made necessary modifications to the judgment accordingly.The Court highlighted the directions issued by the appellate authority, which included absolute confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties, contrary to the High Court's order directing release of goods. The Court found the directions to be in contravention of its order and stayed the operation of the order dated 24th December, 2020. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were directed to comply with the High Court's previous directions, and the matter was listed for further compliance update.Overall, the High Court addressed the challenge to the Commissioner of Customs' order, ensured compliance with its previous directions regarding the release of goods, and stayed the operation of conflicting directions issued by the appellate authority. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding its orders and directed the respondents to adhere to its directives.