Supreme Court: Second Bail Order Must Record Changed Circumstances or Fresh Grounds  ||  SC: Severity of Injury Alone Cannot Prove Attempt to Murder Without Intent to Cause Death  ||  SC: Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Used to Claim Unintended Benefits, Lays Down Principles  ||  Kerala High Court: No Unrestricted RTI; DPDP Act Strengthens Privacy Framework  ||  Allahabad High Court: Juvenile Offence Case Does Not Bar Govt Job In Adulthood  ||  Gauhati HC: Burden Of Proving Citizenship Stays With Proceedee and Does Not Shift At Any Stage  ||  Delhi HC: Property Disputes Between In-Laws and Daughter-In-Law are Not Exclusively For Family Court  ||  Delhi High Court: After Probate is Granted, A Will Does Not Require Fresh Proof under Section 68  ||  Ker HC: Periodic Replacement and Maintenance of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Included in Compensation  ||  Madras High Court: DNA Test Not Required For Mother to Donate Kidney to Her Son    

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