2023 (11) TMI 1174 - AT - Customs

Customs officials violated tribunal orders by blocking gold jewellery re-export despite bank guarantee protection

CESTAT Allahabad held that customs officials acted in defiance of tribunal orders by failing to permit re-export of gold jewelleries despite repeated ... Implementation of Tribunal order - Judicial discipline - Contempt for non-implementation of appellate orders - Bank guarantee as condition for re-export - Imposition of costs for non-compliance - Referability to High Court under Contempt of Courts Act, Section 10Implementation of Tribunal order - Bank guarantee as condition for re-export - Judicial discipline - Failure of Customs authorities to implement the Tribunal's final order permitting re-export and the consequent direction to implement the order forthwith. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that its final order dated 12.09.2019, and subsequent interlocutory directions under Rule 41 requiring the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee, had not been complied with by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), IGI Airport, New Delhi despite the appellant depositing the ordered bank guarantee and keeping it alive as directed. The Tribunal held that no stay had been granted by the High Court and that, in view of established principles of judicial discipline and binding precedents cited in the order, subordinate authorities are bound to comply with appellate directions unless the operation of such orders is stayed by a competent court. The Tribunal observed that holding on to goods after the order setting aside confiscation is illegal and that the department had no lawful basis to continue to withhold the goods. On these grounds the Tribunal directed the concerned Commissioner to implement the order dated 12.09.2019 within a fortnight of receipt of this order. [Paras 6, 8, 13, 19]The Commissioner of Customs (Exports), IGI Airport, New Delhi is directed to implement the Tribunal's order dated 12.09.2019 and permit the re-export within a fortnight of receipt of this order.Imposition of costs for non-compliance - Judicial discipline - Whether pecuniary penalty should be imposed on the concerned Commissioner for willful non-compliance of Tribunal orders. - HELD THAT: - Having concluded that the Commissioner acted in flagrant violation of the Tribunal's directions and breached the doctrine of judicial discipline by repeatedly failing to implement orders passed under Rule 41 despite being given opportunities and specific directions, the Tribunal found imposition of costs to be appropriate to vindicate its authority and deter recurrence. The Tribunal therefore imposed a cost on the concerned Commissioner for delay and non-implementation and directed recovery or payment to the specified fund. [Paras 16, 20]A cost of Rs. 2,00,000 is imposed on the concerned Commissioner (Customs Export, IGI Airport, New Delhi); the amount is to be paid or recovered from the Commissioner and deposited to the PM Cares Fund within a fortnight of receipt of this order.Contempt for non-implementation of appellate orders - Referability to High Court under Contempt of Courts Act, Section 10 - Whether the matter should be referred to the High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the concerned Commissioner for non-compliance. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal, having recorded persistent non-compliance of its orders and the failure of the departmental officers to act in accordance with judicially binding directions, held that the conduct warranted consideration for contempt. Relying on the Contempt of Courts Act framework, the Tribunal directed that the matter be referred to the Registrar General of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for such action as the High Court may deem fit. [Paras 17, 21]The matter is referred to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for consideration of initiation of contempt proceedings against the concerned Commissioner and related officers.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal ordered immediate implementation of its final order permitting re-export (subject to the earlier bank guarantee condition), imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the concerned Commissioner for willful non-compliance to be deposited to the PM Cares Fund or recovered from salary, and referred the matter to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for consideration of contempt proceedings; compliance is to be reported as directed. Issues Involved:1. Implementation of Final Order by the Commissioner of Customs.2. Compliance with Tribunal Orders and Judicial Discipline.3. Contempt Proceedings against Revenue Authorities.4. Imposition of Costs for Non-compliance.Summary:1. Implementation of Final Order by the Commissioner of Customs:The appellant sought the implementation of the Final Order No. 71733-71742/2019 dated 12.09.2019, which directed the Commissioner of Customs, Noida to permit the re-export of gold jewellery. Despite repeated requests and submission of a bank guarantee, the Commissioner failed to comply with the order.2. Compliance with Tribunal Orders and Judicial Discipline:The Tribunal noted that despite no stay being granted by the Allahabad High Court, the concerned officers did not allow the re-export of the gold jewellery. The Tribunal issued multiple orders under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, directing compliance, but the Commissioner continued to defy these orders. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, citing various Supreme Court judgments, and criticized the Commissioner's actions as 'highly unacceptable and unreasonable/unjustified.'3. Contempt Proceedings against Revenue Authorities:The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner's persistent non-compliance with its orders warranted the initiation of contempt proceedings. It referred the matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, for consideration of contempt proceedings against the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), IGI Airport, New Delhi.4. Imposition of Costs for Non-compliance:Due to the Commissioner's failure to implement the Tribunal's orders, a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- was imposed on the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), IGI Airport, New Delhi. The Tribunal directed that this amount be paid by the concerned Commissioner or recovered from his salary and deposited to the P.M. Cares fund within a fortnight of receipt of the order.Conclusion:The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to implement the order dated 12.09.2019 within a fortnight and imposed costs for the delay. The matter was also referred to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of judicial discipline and adherence to appellate authority decisions.