Supreme Court: State Must Be Impleaded When Relief is Sought From Public Exchequer  ||  SC: Student Fees Cannot Be Increased Mid-Course Except in Exceptional Circumstances  ||  Supreme Court: ED's Delay in Sending Arrest Order Does Not By Itself Invalidate Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Appeal Limitation Runs From NCLAT Order Pronouncement, Not Certified Copy Receipt  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Tribunal Has No Supervisory Authority Over Waqf Board  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Aadhaar Fingerprint Comparison to Trace Sreekrishnapuram Murder Culprits  ||  Delhi High Court: Unnatural Death at Police Station Alone Cannot Establish Police Negligence  ||  Orissa High Court: Teacher Scolding Student for Intoxicant Use is Not Suicide Abetment  ||  Supreme Court: Drug Users are Victims and Focus Must Be on Breaking the Supply Chain  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatories May Join Arbitration When the Dispute Affects Their Rights    

Hafizulla Davoobhaigar v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - (High Court of Madras) (14 Sep 2016)

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

MANU/TN/2200/2016

Customs

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 :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved