TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods can be redeemed only for re-export is unjustified - The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the direction by the commissioner (Appeals) that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export. As already directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the adjudicating authority shall quantify the redemption fine payable by the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Appeal allowed in part. - Customs Appeal No.40408 of 2019 - Final Order No. 41039/2019 - Dated:- 9-9-2019 - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI, C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri B.R. Tripathi, Advocate For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority within 15 days of the receipt of the order. The penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was not disturbed. Aggrieved by such order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2.1 On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri B.R.Tripathi, appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that appellant is aggrieved by the order that goods can be redeemed only for re-export. He adverted to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and submitted that an option ought to be given to the appellant for redeeming the goods for home consumption. Whenever the option for redemption is given, no condition can be imposed by the adjudicating authority that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export. He relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the impugned order. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order directing for destruction of the goods. The appellant has been given an option to redeem the goods for the purpose of re-export which is correct. He prayed that there is no grounds for interfering with the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The appellant has mainly contested the order given by the Commissioner (Appeals) to redeem the goods for the purpose of re-export only. He has relied on the decision of Tribunal Mumbai Bench in Final Order No. A/87587-87588/2018 dt. 24.09.2018. In the said case, the Tribunal after referring to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as various decisions have observed that no such condition that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal that it is so, notwithstanding the fact that the said question is now pending before a larger Constitution Bench of nine Judges along with the issue relating to unjust enrichment. Yet the question is whether it is permissible for the High Court to direct the authorities under the Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. We do not think it is, even while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State Act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. In particular, the Customs authorities, who are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 154 (A.P). 6. After considering the facts as well as following the decisions cited above, I am of the view that order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export is unjustified. The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the direction by the commissioner (Appeals) that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export. As already directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the adjudicating authority shall quantify the redemption fine payable by the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No other interference is made in respect of the penalty imposed. The appeal is partly allowed in above terms. (Order pronounced in court on 09.09.2019) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
