1990 (9) TMI 181 - AT - Customs

Appeal Dismissed Due to Premature Redemption Order Acting as Final Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging an interim order that allowed redemption of goods upon payment of a fine, despite being titled as interim. ... Confiscation of goods and redemption fine Issues:Interpretation of an interim order as a final order leading to confiscation and redemption fine before conclusion of proceedings.Analysis:The appeal pertains to an interim order issued by the Additional Collector of Customs, Airport, New Delhi, allowing redemption of goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 80,000. The appellant's contention is that the interim order effectively functions as a final order, which is legally unsustainable. The appellant argues that the redemption fine should only be imposed after the conclusion of proceedings and establishment of charges, not as an interim measure.The learned counsel highlights that despite the interim nature of the order, it resulted in the confiscation of goods, which were subsequently found to be spoiled. The appellant emphasizes that the imposition of a redemption fine at this stage is premature and violates procedural fairness. The respondent, represented by the SDR, acknowledges the interim nature of the order and expresses willingness for a remand to allow the Additional Collector to pass a final order in compliance with the law.Upon review, the Tribunal observes that the order, although titled as an interim order, contains elements of a final decision, including the confiscation of goods and the provision for redemption on payment of a fine. The Tribunal notes that the Additional Collector's intention seemed to be interim in nature, with further proceedings and orders anticipated. However, the operational part of the order contradicts this intent by imposing immediate consequences such as confiscation and redemption.The Tribunal refers to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, which specifies that appeals can be made against final decisions or orders, not interim ones. The Tribunal concludes that the order, despite its interim label, functions as a final decision by confiscating goods and imposing a redemption fine prematurely. The Tribunal dismisses the appeal as non-maintainable due to the lack of provision for appeals against interim orders.In closing remarks, the Tribunal criticizes the Additional Collector's actions as premature and legally flawed. The Tribunal suggests that the Additional Collector should refrain from imposing conditions prematurely and instead focus on concluding the proceedings before issuing a final order. The petition is ultimately disposed of, emphasizing the need for procedural adherence and fairness in customs adjudication processes.