The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following orders of higher appellate authorities and the impact of non-compliance on administrative discipline and the efficacy of the appellate remedy.

JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. This order will dispose off both the writ petitions.

2. Heard Mr. Shyam Dewani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pradeep Jetly, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

3. Though facts and reliefs sought for in both the writ petitions are identical for which reason those have been heard together, for the sake of convenience, facts pleaded in Writ Petition (St.) No.97997 of 2020 are being adverted to.

4. Petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of import and trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals such as copper, nickel, aluminum, minor metals etc. Petitioner had entered into an agreement with one M/s. S. R. Enterprises (referred to as ‘the high seas buyer’) for supply of copper wire rods in the course of import of such goods. On reaching the port of entry, the high seas buyer filed bills of entry bearing Nos.6050166, 6049455 (both dated 12.12.2019) and 6089890, 6088119, 6091844, 6092308 (all dated 16.12.2019) corresponding to various bills of lading. It may be mentioned that petitioner as the importer had purchased the said goods from one M/s. Union Copper Rod LLC, Dubai but the consignments were sold to the high seas buyer while in the course of import.

5. It appears that some dispute arose between the petitioner and the high seas buyer which led to cancellation of the high seas agreement. Following repudiation of the high seas agreement, petitioner filed application dated 30.12.2019 before respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 for amendment of the bills of entry by substituting its name as the importer in place of the high seas buyer and for clearance of the consignments on payment of customs duty. However, instead of responding to the request of the petitioner, the goods were detained and subsequently seized.

6. In this connection, petitioner had filed writ petition before this Court but for the purpose of adjudication of the present lis, it may not be necessary to delve into details of the previous litigation. However, we may note that while disposing off the earlier writ petition being Writ Petition No.862 of 2020 vide order dated 27.02.2020, this Court took note of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application for provisional release of the goods under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 (briefly ‘the Act’ hereinafter) was filed as well as the statement of learned counsel for the respondents that such application would be decided in accordance with law within 12 weeks, subsequently corrected to two weeks.

7. However, by order dated 17.03.2020, Joint Commissioner of Customs rejected the request of the petitioner for provisional release of the seized goods.

8. Assailing the above order dated 17.03.2020, petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II. By the order-in-appeal dated 18.09.2020, the appellate authority allowed the prayer of the petitioner to carry out amendment in the bills of entry and directed the original authority to amend the bills of entry accordingly. Original authority was also directed to take a decision on the request of the appellant (petitioner) for provisional release of the subject goods within six weeks.

9. Alleging that the order of the appellate authority has not been complied with by the lower authority thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

10. On 22.12.2020, we had asked Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions as to why the appellate order dated 18.09.2020 has not been complied with by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Subsequently, respondents have filed reply affidavit. While a major portion of the reply affidavit pertains to objection on merit, in so far the appellate order and compliance thereto is concerned, it is stated in paragraph 25 of the reply affidavit that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) has been reviewed by the Committee of Commissioners and was found to