JUDGMENT
Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. By this Miscellaneous, Applications, the applicants have brought to our notice that the Tribunal’s Order No. A-371-380/Kol/2003 dated 10.6.03 in the case of Ma Sherawati Impex and nine Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), has not been implemented by the Commissioner and their goods have not been released in spite of observation by the Hon’ble Tribunal in para 6 of its Order.
2. Heard Dr. Samir Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, who submits that the Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to pass the above Order and dispose of all the appeals by allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs and pointed out in para 6 that D.R.I. authorities have excessively interfered in the whole case in not allowing the small importers to get their goods released in spite of the fact that they had paid the whole amount of fine and penalty as adjudged by the adjudicating authority. It was, in these circumstances, that the Hon’ble Tribunal had directed the Customs Authorities to release the goods without any further delay, if not already done. He therefore, requests that Contempt Proceedings may be initiated against the Customs Officers responsible for this deliberate defiance and to issue directions under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (Now C.E.S.T.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1982).
3. We have heard learned Advocate, Shri Biswajit Mukherjee, learned Advocate for Revenue who submits that in all these cases, the Department has sent the proposal for filing Civil Appeal against the Order of the Hon’ble C.E.S.T.A.T. which has gone in favour of the importers. He accordingly submits a letter written to the Senior Departmental Representative on 27.6.2003 by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Tribunal Cell, Customs House, Kolkata and, it has been intimated that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs has been directed by the Commissioner of Customs to request the S.D.R. to inform the Hon’ble Tribunal that the Department has taken the decision for filing appeal in the present case and accordingly, the goods could not be released. Learned Advocate fairly concedes that there is no stay from the Hon’ble Supreme Court against this Order of the Hon’ble Tribunal.
4. We have considered the rival submissions and our apprehensions have come true, which we have observed in para 6 of our Order that there is excessively interference by the D.R.I. authorities and by the Customs Authorities not to release the goods to the small importers, in spite of the fact that they have already paid the whole amount of fine and penalty as adjudged by the adjudicating authority. It is well settled that C.E.G.A.T.’s Orders have to be implemented in the absence of any stay as also reported in 2003 (54) RLT-685 (CEGAT-Kol.) in the case of Hindusthan Safety Glass Works Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE, Calcutta-II and Ors, and in, 2001 (43) RLT-793 in the case of Max India Ltd. We also refer to the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C. Ex., Noida, 2003 (56) RLT-613 (CEGAT-LB) wherein the Tribunal has directed the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner to establish as to why the matter be not reported High Court for initiating Contempt Proceedings. In exercise of our powers under Rule 41 of the C.E.G.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (now C.E.S.T.A.T.), we direct the Commissioner to release the goods within three days and report compliance on Monday i.e. 7.7.2003, failing which we shall be constrained to initiate Contempt Proceedings against the Commissioner for non-implementation of our Order and for deliberate defiance of the Order of the Higher Judicial Forum.
This Order shall be served dasti to both the parties. Ordered accordingly.