2023 (2) TMI 403

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation of the lis. 4. Petitioner works for gain at Dubai. While on his visit to India on 25.01.2021 he had made a baggage declaration on 13.08.2021 in the office of respondent No.5 in respect of goods consigned to India by sea vide container No.MSCU 9553955 under Non Transfer of Residence (NTR) category declaring the value of the goods at Rs.3,65,000.00. Respondents took the view that the goods imported by the petitioner did not constitute bona fide baggage. In this connection, show cause notice dated 18.10.2021 was issued as to why the declaration made by the petitioner should not be rejected and the goods confiscated, besides imposition of penalty under various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (briefly, 'the Customs Act' hereinafter). 5. Ultimately, order-in-original dated 21.10.2021 was passed by respondent No.4 rejecting the declaration of the petitioner dated 13.08.2021 and determining the value of the goods at Rs.20,35,391.00 under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. That apart, certain more amounts were levied on the petitioner besides ordering for confiscation of the goods. However, respondent No.4 gave an option ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ine amounting to Rs.21,000/- under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order; the confiscated goods which have been given an option for redemption on payment of redemption fine are to be released on payment of Redemption Fine and on payment of customs duties as applicable and penalty as imposed; (v) I order for confiscation of the goods mentioned in Annexure-II to Annexure V to the notice valued at Rs.6,70,265/-, under Section 111(d), 111(l), 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, Foreign Trade (Development & Relation Act, 1992, Baggage Rules, 2016, Import Sanitary Permit issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as amended; Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 read with Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as amended, and for non-registration under Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), wherever applicable; However, I give an option for redemption of the goods on payment of redemption fine amounting to Rs. 1,68,000/- under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order; The confiscated goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Notwithstanding the above decision of the appellate authority, respondent No.5 issued the impugned order dated 15.12.2022. Petitioner has been informed that Customs Department has reviewed the order-in-appeal and thereafter has preferred an appeal against the said order. In view of the Customs Department's appeal against the order-in-appeal, request for clearance of the goods has not been considered by respondent No.3. Accordingly, permission for clearance of goods has not been accorded. 9. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 10. On 30.12.2022, while directing learned Standing Counsel representing the Customs Department to obtain instruction, we had passed the following order: Petitioner is aggrieved by communication dated 15.12.2022 issued by the 5th respondent declining to release the confiscated goods of the petitioner. Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner against such order of confiscation and directed clearance of the goods. However, it appears that Customs Department has preferred an appeal against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, clea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 14. Following the above decisions of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ganesh Benzoplast Limited v. Union of India 2020 (374) ELT 552 held that noncompliance of orders of the appellate authority by the subordinate original authority is disturbing to say the least as it strikes at the very root of administrative discipline and may have the effect of severely undermining the efficacy of the appellate remedy provided to a litigant under the statute. Principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. 15. This principle has been reiterated by the Bombay High Court in Himgiri Buildcon & Industries Limited v. Union of India, Writ Petition (ST) Nos. 97994 of 2020 & 97997 of 2020, decided on February 08, 2021. 16. In Mylan Laboratories Limited v. National Faceless Assessment Centre (2022) 446 ITR 734 : 2022 (4) ALD 520 (TS) (DB), a Division Bench of this Court was considering challenge to a draft assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the said order, depreciation claimed by the assessee o....