A petitioner can be allowed to clear imported goods pending appeal by paying a portion of the duty and providing security.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner imported a consignment of 'heavy melting scrap' under the Customs Tariff Head CTH 7204.49.00 of the Customs Tariff Act. The respondents took the stand that the consignment is not heavy melting scrap, but are 'channels' of different length classifiable under CTH 7308.90.10 of the Customs Tariff Act. An adjudication order was passed demanding duty from the petitioner under CTH 7308.90.10. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. While that appeal was pending the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.17176 of 2010 seeking a direction to the respondents to permit clearance of the goods pending consideration of the appeal. By judgment dated 15.06.2010 I directed as follows:-

“Pending disposal of the appeal, the respondents

shall permit the petitioner to clear the goods on payment of ½ duty demanded and furnishing bank guarantee for the balance. Demand for redemption fine and penalty would stand stayed until orders are passed by the appellate authority. The petitioner shall further execute a bond as provided under Section 143 of the Customs Act to pay the duty, fine and penalty as per orders in

appeal.”

The goods could not be cleared immediately before the appeal was disposed of, which according to the petitioner, was because of the fault of the respondents and, according to the respondents, because of the fault of the petitioner. However the fact remains that before the goods could be cleared as directed in the judgment, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed Contempt Case No.1070 of 2010 alleging non compliance with the directions in that judgment. The respondents filed R.P.No.836 of 2010 for review of the judgment on the ground that before the goods could be cleared, the appeal had already been dismissed and therefore the relevance of the judgment has ceased and the same requires to be reviewed. It is under the above situation the petitioner has filed this writ petition submitting that petitioner has filed a further appeal before the 4th respondent Appellate Tribunal. Copy of the appeal is produced as Ext.P9. The petitioner seeks the same order as in the earlier judgment pending disposal of the said appeal. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of opinion that pending disposal of the second appeal also, the petitioner can be permitted to clear the goods. Accordingly the respondents shall permit the petitioner to clear the goods on payment of 50% of the duty demanded and furnishing bank guarantee for the balance. Demand for redemption fine and penalty would stand stayed until orders are passed by the 4th respondent on Ext.P9 appeal. The petitioner shall further execute a bond as provided under Section 143 of the Customs Act to pay the duty fine and penalty as per orders in Ext.P9 appeal.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above, in view of my above order I do not think that any further orders are necessary in the Contempt Case and in the Review Petition. Accordingly, the Contempt Case and in Review Petition are closed.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.

mns