Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2023 (12) TMI 190 - AT - CustomsViolation of principles of judicial discipline - Seeking provisional release of seized goods - Smuggling - foreign origin gold and cash - release denied on the ground that respondent was not cooperating with the investigation proceedings - HELD THAT - From the plain reading of Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962 it is quite evident that provisional release of the seized goods in terms of Section 110A goods document and things seized pending adjudication has been allowed as a right to the person who claims ownership of the said goods documents and things. The only requirement is that at the time of release the bond in proper form with security and conditions as adjudicating authority may impose should be taken from him. The only grounds stated by the Additional Commissioner in Order-in-Original for not allowing the provisional release of the seized goods and Indian currency is that respondent was not cooperating with the investigation proceedings. The ongoing investigation cannot be ground for the denial of right to the provisional release of seized goods conferred on the respondent by the Customs Act 1962. It seems that the Additional Commissioner while passing this order has not acted as quasi judicial authority but an agent of investigating team of DRI officers and have instead of implementing the rule of law has decided to implement the will of the investigating authorities. Such an approach or interference in quasi judicial functioning by the investigating authorities is totally uncalled for and is condemned. It is not understood as to how officers responsible for implementing a Central Law - Customs Act 1962 holding high positions of Commissioner in the justice delivery system as per the Act ibid direct contrary to the provisions of the law as have been interpreted by the Higher Judicial Forums including the Jurisdictional High Court. The appeal filed itself goes contrary to the principles of judicial discipline which are so sacrosanct for establishing rule of law. It is directed that copy of this order should be given to the Chief Commissioner of the zone and Member Investigation/ Member Customs for taking necessary action and to ensure that such practices is avoided - appeal dismissed.
|