1993 (6) TMI 172 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upheld 30% Duty Reduction, Orders Prompt Implementation & Consequential Relief

WAVIN INDIA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

The Tribunal upheld the 30% reduction in value for abatement of duty under Section 22 of the Customs Act. It set aside the Collector of Customs (Appeals), ... Appellate Tribunal if seized of the matter and passed order Issues Involved:1. Implementation of Tribunal's Order No. 773/91-A.2. Admissibility of 30% reduction in value for abatement under Section 22 of the Customs Act.3. Authority of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad to set aside the Order-in-Original after the Tribunal's final order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Implementation of Tribunal's Order No. 773/91-A:The Tribunal had previously directed the Collector of Customs, Kandla, to implement its final Order No. 773/91-A, dated 30-9-1991, within one month from 8-9-1992. The party filed a Miscellaneous Petition on 8-10-1992 due to non-implementation of this order. The Tribunal reiterated that once it has passed its final orders, they become final and must be implemented by the subordinate authorities.2. Admissibility of 30% reduction in value for abatement under Section 22 of the Customs Act:The Tribunal affirmed the Order-in-Appeal No. 3161/88, dated 29-8-1988, which allowed a 30% reduction in value for abatement of customs duty under Section 22 of the Customs Act. The party had initially requested a 50% reduction, but the Tribunal found the 30% reduction reasonable based on available evidence, including the chemical report showing 6.4% contamination. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad, however, set aside this order, arguing that the contamination occurred 3.5 months after unloading and that the Tribunal had not considered the admissibility of the 30% reduction.3. Authority of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad to set aside the Order-in-Original after the Tribunal's final order:The Tribunal emphasized that the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad, had no authority to sit on judgment over the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's final order, which affirmed the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, was binding and could not be overridden by a subordinate authority. The Tribunal cited several judgments, including the Supreme Court's observation in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., that revenue officers are bound by the decisions of appellate authorities, and non-compliance leads to undue harassment and chaos in tax administration.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad, and upheld the 30% reduction in value for abatement of duty under Section 22 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal directed the Collector of Customs, Kandla, to implement its final Order No. 773/91-A forthwith and grant consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and the binding nature of its orders on subordinate authorities.