TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d dispute. Even mere filing of the revision against the order of appellate authority would not empower the respondent to deny release of the goods in question and the respondent have not given any proper explanation as to why no stay order has been obtained against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 30.06.2015, even though the said order said to have been challenged by way of further appeal. Respondent was directed to release the goods - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.17964 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2016 - V. MURALIDARAN J. For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Ganesh For the Respondent : Mr. V. Sundareswaran ORDER The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the goods detained in O.S.No.1241 of 2014 Air by implementing and give effect to the Order-in-Appeal viz., C. Cus-I No.365 of 2015 in C4-I/311/O/2015 Air dated 30.06.2015 within a reasonable time frame. 2. The case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner came from Singapore on 20.09.2014 and landed at Chennai International Airport, he was intercepted by the Customs at the arrival h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bio Tech vs. The Chief Commissioner of Customs. (iii) W.P.No.9284 of 2006 (Pushpanjali Silks Private Ltd., vs. CC of Customs and another.) (iv) Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Krishna Sales (P) limited reported in AIR 1994 SC 1239. (v) W.P(MD)No.18536 to 18538 of 2016 (Mohamed Ansar Abdul Gafoor vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs). (vi) Rabiya Bee vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport) and others (W.P.No.19960 of 2016 batch dated 17.06.2016). 5. The case of the respondent is that though the Commissioner of Customs has passed the order on 30.06.2015, against which, the respondent has filed a revision along with stay petition under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 before the revisional authority, the same is pending till date. To support his contention, he has given a list of dates for filing revision for the 14 cases including this case. Therefore, the respondent argued before this Court that once he filed a revision against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, the petitioner ought to have approached the revisional authority or he should wait till the order passed by the revisional authority and the writ petition filed by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) i.e., payment of redemption fine for re-export and personal penalty and also giving an undertaking to comply with the Order in Original, in the event the Department succeeds in the revision. The above directions shall be complied with by the respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation reported in 1991(55) ELT 433 SC has clearly held that the respondent failed to respect the order of the Apex Court and failed to implement the order shows contempt of Court. Further in the abovesaid order, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:- 6.The High Court has, in our view, rightly criticised this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal as the case may be. In the light of these amended provisions, there can be no jurisdiction for any Assistant Collector or Collector refusing to follow the order of the Appellate Collector or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, even where he may have some reservations on its correctness. He has to follow the order of the right appellate authority. This may instantly cause some prejudice to the Revenue but the remedy is also in the hands of the same officer. He has only to bring the matter to the notice of the Board or the Collector so as to enable appropriate proceedings being taken under S.353(1) or (2) to keep the interests of the department alive. If the officers view is the correct one, it will not doubt be finally upheld and the Revenue will get the duty, though after some delay which such procedure would entail In this case in hand, there is no stay as on date. Therefore, the above Judgment is squarely applicable to the case in hand. 11.Apart from that, this Court in W.P(MD)No.24495 of 2011 (M/s Supra Bio Tech vs. The Chief Commissioner of Customs, has held as follows:- 16. .............. on a perusal of the documents available, this Court is of the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d illegal. It is also noted that an amount of ₹ 12,00,000 had already been paid by the petitioner, as duty, in respect of the goods in question..... 12. In yet another case in W.P.No.9284 of 2006 (Pushpanjali Silks Private Ltd., Vs. CC of Customs and another), this Court has held as follows:- 14. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Additional Solicitor General, I am of the view that the third respondent is duty bound to implement the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and he cannot flout the orders by not releasing the goods covered by the Bill of Entry in question. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 judicial discipline would require that the authorities are bound by the decision of the Tribunal or the Appellate Authority. Admittedly, though the CESTAT pronounced Final Order No.174/2006 dated 20.3.2006, the Revenue has not so far obtained any order from the CESTAT suspending the operation of the said order. It is not the case of the Revenue that the order of the CESTAT has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, I am of the view that the princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 30.06.2015 and the revisions are said to have been presented only on 16.02.2016/05.03.2016. In any event, as on date, the orders which have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) almost one year back has not been either set aside or modified. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent should comply with the direction subject to certain conditions. 7. In the light of the above, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent to release the Gold Jewellery for the purpose of re-export subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) i.e., payment of redemption fine for re-export and personal penalty and also giving an undertaking to comply with the Order in Original, in the event the Department succeeds in the revision. The above directions shall be complied with by the respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 15. The above Judgments are squarely applicable in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in various cases very categorically held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
