TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re binding on them, by paying utmost regard to judicial discipline, mere fact of the filing of an appeal against such orders and the pendency of such an appeal cannot be shown as a sufficient reason for not following the orders of the higher appellate authorities - respondents are directed to release the goods in question within Ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - open to the petitioner to make a representation to the appropriate authority, with regard to the issuance of a Detention Certificate, for the waiver of the demurrage and detention charges . - Writ Petition No.24495 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2012 - MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN, J. For petitioner : Mr.B.Satish Sundar For respondents : Mr.P.Mahadevan SCCG O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a partnership firm, established in the year, 2005. It is engaged in the production of beneficial micro organisms used in agriculture, as bio-fertiliser. For the production of the beneficial micro organisms, the petitioner has been procuring Stains from Chandigarh and Biological Gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been drawn from the consignments of the imported goods, by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. However, the investigating agency had alleged that there has been a mis-declaration of the cargo, as it has been declared as plant leaf extract, (Bio-fertilizers). As the goods imported are insecticides, the importation of such goods requires registration from the Central Insecticide Board, in terms of Section 9 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, read with the relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2010. 6. It has been further stated that the samples drawn from the imported goods were tested by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Regional Centre of Organic Farming, Bangalore, to test as to whether the items imported by the petitioner was Bio-fertilizer, as claimed by the petitioner, or as to whether the said samples contained Biocide in general and oxymatrine in particular. Vide its test report, dated 14.12.2010, the agency had found that the supplied samples were not Bio-fertilizers. Further, testing of the samples were undertaken by the National Centre for Mass Spectrometry, Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad, at the instance of the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly under the Customs Tariff Heading 1302 1990. It had categorically rejected the claim of the investigating agency that the imported goods are Insecticides/Pesticides, classifiable under the Customs Tariff Heading 3808 9199. 11. The order of the appellate authority was made available to the petitioner, on 21.9.2011. On receipt of the same, the petitioner had furnished a copy of the said order, to the second respondent therein, under letter, dated 23.9.2011, received and acknowledged by the second respondent, on 26.9.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a further communication, dated 10.10.2011, requesting the respondents to act, as per the order of the appellate authority and to cause the release of the imported consignments and to issue the Detention Certificate, for the waiver of rent and demurrage charges, in terms of Regulation 6(1) of Handling of Cargo and Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, as the goods were pending clearance, for more than a year, for no fault of the petitioner. However, as no action had been taken by the respondents, on the requests made by the petitioner, the petitioner had been constrained to prefer the present writ petition before this Court, unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsecticides in the guise of 'Plant Leave Extract (Bio-fertilizer)' by misdeclaration of the goods. In such circumstances, an appeal had been filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, against the order of the appellate authority, with an application for stay of the impugned order of the said authority. 16. In view of the rival contentions, made on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the documents available, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent Department ought to have given effect to the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, the appellate authority, dated 16.9.2011, made in C.Cus.No.655 and 656 of 2011, in order to maintain judicial discipline, as held in the decision cited supra. 17. The mere filing of an appeal against the order of the appellate authority, and the pendency of the said appeal, cannot be shown as sufficient grounds for not giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), dated 16.9.2011. Even though the National Centre for Mass Spectrometry, Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, had by its communication, dated 9.12.2010, had opined that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
