High Court of Madras

Hafizulla Davoobhaigar v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs

MANU/TN/2200/2016

14.09.2016

Customs

Mere filing of revision against order of appellate authority would not empower Respondent to deny release of goods in question

In instant case, Joint Commissioner confiscated goods, however, allowed Petitioner to redeem goods on payment of Redemption fine and imposed a penalty. Case of Petitioner is that though order of appeal was delivered to him on 26th December, 2015, Respondent had not implemented order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Respondent argued before this Court that, once he filed a revision against order of Commissioner of Customs, Petitioner ought to have approached revisional authority or he should wait till order passed by revisional authority and writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

Once appellate authority, namely, Commissioner of Customs has passed order on 30th November, 2015 and without obtaining any order of stay of appeal, Respondent should not keep themselves by disobeying order passed by appellate authority.

Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in various cases very categorically held that, order of Joint Commissioner of Customs and Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) clearly shows that, Petitioner has not committed any violation, therefore, they should implement order of Commissioner of Customs in a true letter and dispute. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to get release of gold, since long delay in release of goods would, no doubt, reduce its potency and its market value would deteriorate to detriment of Petitioner. In this case, there is nothing has been shown on behalf of Respondent to substantiate their claim that necessary steps had been taken to obtain interim order of stay against order of authority.

Mere filing of revision against order of appellate authority would not empower Respondent to deny release of goods in question and Respondent had not given any proper explanation as to why no stay order had been obtained against order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 30.11.2015, even though said order said to have been challenged by way of further appeal. Therefore, Petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to detention of goods in question, which had been imported by Petitioner, hence, Petitioner is entitled to get release of goods.

Relevant

Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation [MANU/SC/0137/1992
] : 1991(55) ELT 433 SC, Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Krishna Sales (P) Ltd., [MANU/SC/0274/1994
]  : AIR 1994 SC 1239

Tags : Appellate order Implementation Goods Release

Share :