Tribunal order enforcement requires compliance absent a stay; pending appeal alone does not excuse non-implementation.

Customs authorities are expected to implement a Tribunal order in the ordinary course where no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court or High Court. Mere pendency of an appeal does not justify withholding compliance with an unimplemented order. An application under Rule 40 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 therefore lies to seek enforcement of the earlier order, and the authorities may be directed to give effect to it without further delay, preferably within one month.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs authorities could be directed to implement the Tribunal's earlier order when no stay had been granted by the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The application sought enforcement of the Tribunal's order under Rule 40 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Since the earlier order had remained unimplemented for several months and there was no stay from the Supreme Court or High Court, the authorities were expected to comply with it in the ordinary course. The pendency of an appeal by itself did not justify non-implementation in the absence of a stay.

Conclusion: The authorities were directed to implement the Tribunal's order without further delay, preferably within one month, and the application succeeded.

---