Revenue commissioners apologize for four-year delay in implementing tribunal order, contempt proceedings disposed

CESTAT Allahabad disposed of contempt proceedings against revenue commissioners who failed to implement a tribunal order dated 12.09.2019 for four years. The commissioners tendered unconditional apology for the delay, claiming they relied on legal opinion. The tribunal cited Krishna Sales (P) Ltd. SC precedent establishing that authorities must obtain stay orders rather than refuse implementation pending appeal. While expressing unhappiness over the four-year delay, CESTAT accepted the apology considering government procedural complexities and warned officers to be careful. Following Bombay HC precedent in S.J. Enterprises, the tribunal set aside cost imposition and contempt reference directions, retaining only the implementation order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Tribunal Orders
2. Delay in Implementation
3. Legal Opinion and Stay Application
4. Apology and Contempt Proceedings

Summary of Judgment:

1. Compliance with Tribunal Orders:
The matter was listed to report compliance with Miscellaneous Order No. 70121 of 2023 dated 09.11.2023. Revenue filed two miscellaneous applications seeking recall of the order to refer the matter to the High Court for consideration of contempt proceedings. The Revenue stated that they had complied with the Tribunal's orders by granting no objection for re-export of the gold in question.

2. Delay in Implementation:
The applicant tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in implementing the Final Order dated 12.09.2019. The delay was attributed to the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida, who took over on 03.10.2023 and was made aware of the orders on 24.11.2023. Various steps were taken, including seeking legal opinions and writing letters to relevant authorities, but the stay application was still pending before the High Court.

3. Legal Opinion and Stay Application:
The Revenue's contention that they did not implement the order due to legal opinion was not accepted. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in Krishna Sales (P) Ltd., which held that authorities must obtain a stay order if they believe goods should not be released pending an appeal. Mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay.

4. Apology and Contempt Proceedings:
The Tribunal acknowledged the unconditional apology tendered by the concerned commissioners and noted the procedural delays in government operations. While expressing unhappiness over the four-year delay, the Tribunal decided that the end of justice would be met by warning the officers to be careful in future. The Tribunal referred to similar cases where unconditional apologies led to the discharge of contempt notices. Consequently, the Tribunal reconsidered and set aside the parts of the order imposing costs and referring the matter to the High Court for contempt proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed that except for the implementation of the Final Order dated 12.09.2019, all other parts of the order, including imposition of costs and reference to the High Court for contempt proceedings, are set aside. The miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue were disposed of.

---