Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2021 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 200 - HC - CustomsForbearance on respondent from auctioning the 178 watches seized from the respondent till the disposal of the appeal - foreign made watches of various brands - revaluation of confiscated watches - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - in an appeal filed by the respondent, can an order adverse to the interest of the respondent be passed, when admittedly, such portion of the order was not questioned before the First Appellate Authority? - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the Original Authority directed redemption of the seized goods on payment of redemption fine and appropriate Customs Duty. The respondent was on appeal before the First Appellate Authority, questioning the correctness of the entire order, that is, on the revaluation of the goods, on imposition of redemption fine and payment of Customs Duty and penalty. The First Appellate Authority, therefore, would be required to test the correctness of the order passed by the Original Authority and if he does not agree with the order, he made set aside the order, but the respondent cannot be worse off in his own appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority - this question is required to be agitated before the Tribunal in the appeal which has been filed by the respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, it appears that the Department took steps to dispose of the seized watches, which permitted the petitioner to file the Writ Petition. During the pendency of the appeal before the CESTAT, it would not be appropriate for the Department to dispose the seized goods, especially when the Tribunal has directed the appeal to be heard during November, 2021, and furthermore, the Original Authority has directed redemption of the seized watches on payment of redemption fine and appropriate Customs Duty. Therefore, the appellant/Department has to necessarily await the decision of the Tribunal and abide by the direction that has been issued by the Tribunal. The effect of the Circular dated 10.03.2017 need not be gone into in the instant case, as the respondent has complied with the Pre-Deposit condition for preferring the appeal before the CESTAT and the appeal has been directed to be listed for final hearing before the Division Bench during November, 2021. Therefore, the steps taken by the appellant/Department for auctioning the goods have to necessarily be deferred and await the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the respondent. Appeal is dismissed with a direction to the appellant/Department not to initiate any coercive action against the respondent, as the respondent has complied with the Pre- Deposit condition in terms of 129(E) of the Act and the watches which have been seized shall continue to be retained as such and not put up for auction and the appellant/Department shall await the decision of the Tribunal and abide by the same.
|