SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Mad) 887

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. ALI MOHAMED
Neo Intex Mills Limited - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Customs Tuticorin - Respondents
W.P. No. 8635/96
Decided On : 29 August 1996

Appearing Advocates:Habibullah Basha, K. Jayachanan, Advocates.

The order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is binding on all subordinate authorities working within its jurisdiction and should be followed unreservedly.

Headnote:

CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - SECTION 111(M) - ORDER OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BINDING ON SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES - IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDER - MANDAMUS ISSUED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner imported autocones under EPCG licence. Customs authorities confiscated the goods for mis-declaration of value and imposed penalty. Petitioner appealed to Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation and penalty. Despite the Tribunal's order, the authorities did not release the goods.

Finding of the Court:

The order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is binding on all subordinate authorities working within its jurisdiction. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the highest appellate authority should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The subject matter of the appeal can furnish no grounds for not following it, unless its operation has been suspended by the competent Court.

Issues: Whether the subordinate authorities are bound to comply with the orders of the Appellate Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Limited held that the order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.

Final Decision: The Court directed the respondents to implement the order of the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Madras in Appeal NCC/V-129/96/Md & C/V-130/96/Md, dated 18-5-1996 in accordance with law, within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Judgment :-

By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2.The prayer in the writ petition is to issue awrit of mandamusdirecting the respondents to release 6 Nos. of autocones lying under the custody of Customs Department at Tuticorin Port confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Order-in-original dated 17-2-1996 and 19-2-1996 in Order Nos. 2 & 3 of 1996 by implementing the order of the Tribunal dated 18-5-1996 in Order No. 804 of 1996 and pass such further orders.

3.The case of the petitioner is as follows :-

The petitioner company is in export-oriented unit engaged in the manufacture of textile cotton yarn for exports. For the expansion of the unit, petitioner-company imported autocones numbering 6 units covered by two bills of entry, viz., Bill of Entry bearing No. 75 dated 8-11-1995 for 4 nos. autocones and Bill of Entry No. 76, dated 8-11-1995 for 2 nos. autocones. The petitioner company had been penalised for the reason that the value declared by the petitioner in respect of goods imported and covered by the above 2 bills of entry was not accepted by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Trichy and the value was determined under Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and the petitioner had been charged with mis-declaration of the value and the goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed redemption on payment of redemption fine of Rs. [25, 00, 0] (sic) and a penalty of Rs. 10, 00, 000/- were imposed on the petitioner. A further duty has been demanded in respect of the value not covered under EPCG licence produced by the petitioner for the purpose of concessional rate of duty. Then the goods were confiscated and redemption fine of Rs. 10, 00, 000/- was imposed and demanded a duty for value of Rs. 45, 12, 480/- not covered by EPCG licence in a penalty of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- was also imposed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-company preferred two appeals before the Customs, Excise and Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras in Appeal No. C/V-129/96/Md & C/V-130/96/Md. The appeal of the petitioner were allowed. The operative portion of the appellate order dated 18-5-1996 reads as follow:

"In this background therefore merely because one importation has been made at a higher price cannot form the basis for enhancement of the value of the machines of the appellants who has produced evidence in support of the value declared by way of certificate issued by the statutory authority, the High powered Committee constituted by the Government of India and it is further backed the same by producing other evidence by way of proforma invoice for 1986 model machines and also similar machines manufactured in India. In view of the above, taking into consideration the evidence on record we hold that no valid basis has been laid for enhancing the value as done by the learned lower authority and we therefore give the appellants the benefit of doubt and set aside the order of the learned lower authority enhancing the value and also levy of penalty on the appellants and also confiscation of the goods. We therefore allow the appeals of the appellants with consequential relief."

4.The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras, dated 18-5-1996, the respondents have not released the goods so far. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition with the relief as prayed for.

5.Mr. Habibullah Basha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras, is binding upon the subordinate officials and they are bound to comply with the directions of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Madras. In





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top