ORDER
1. This petition pertain to imports of consignments of waterproof Nylon Umbrella cloth from Japan by the petitioners under an Import Replenishment Licence No. 0458985 dated 17-10-1981 issued in favour of M/s. Jayantilal Mangalji Mehta who were at the material time an Export House. The licence holders on 23-11-1981 executed in favour of the petitioners a letter of authority authorising the petitioners, inter alia, to import goods covered by the said licence, establish letters of credit and remit funds and clear the goods from the customs. The petitioners were entitled to import industrial raw materials, components and spares which were allowed under Open General Licence for Actual Users (Industrial) in the Import Policy for 1987-79 and are not allowed under OGL in the Import Policy 1982-83 as specified in the licence. It is an admitted position that the licence was valid at the date of the imports in question.
2. In pursuance of a letter of authority and the said Import Licence, the petitions imported consignments of waterproof Nylon Umbrella cloth. The first consignment arrived in Bombay in or about January 1984. The petitioners filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of the said consignment of home consumption against the said Import Licence. The Assistant Collector of Customs declined to grant clearance on the ground that the goods imported were not covered by the said Import Licence. Order of the Deputy Collector of Customs is dated 6-3-1984. The Deputy Collector consfiscated the goods but gave an option to the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 26,800/-in lieu of confiscation and clear the goods for home consumption. The petitioners preferred in an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) against the said order. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) after giving a hearing to the petitioners, has passed an order dated 5-7-1984 under which he has held that the said goods imported by the petitioners were covered by the said Import Licence. He has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Deputy Collector. From this order, the respondents contend that they have filed an appeal before CEGAT. Apparently, this appeal was filed beyond time and an application was made some time in November or December 1984 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The respondents are unable to tell us whether the delay has been condoned, whether the appeal has been considered on merit and what is the outcome of the appeal, although 9 years have gone by since the order was passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In these circumstances, the order of the Collector is binding on the respondents.
3. The present petition is concerned with further consignments of waterproof Nylon Umbrella Cloth which are imported by the petitioners against the same Import Licence. These consignments arrived in Bombay in June 1984. In the second week of July 1984 the petitioners filed a Bill of Entry in respect of each of the 6 consignments and sought clearance of these goods for home consumption under the said Import Licence. The petitioners also relied upon the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 5-7-1984 holding that the goods in question were covered by the said Import Licence and hence the import was valid. The Assistant Collector of Customs, however, on or about 30- 11-1988 issued 5 notices under Section 124 of the Customs, Act, 1962 and one notice dated 10-1-1985 covering the said two consignments were not covered by the said Import Licence. The petitioners were required to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penal action should not be taken against the petitioners. These notices are challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. As a result of an interim order which has been passed in this petition, the petitioners have been permitted to clear the goods as set out in the said interim order on giving a personal bond but without any Bank Guarantee.
4. The respondents are bound by the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 5-7-1984 under which he has held that the import of the said goods is covered by the said Import Licence. The respondents, therefore, have no basis for issuing the above show cause notices. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., reported in 1991 (55) E. L. T. 433 (SC) has held that, in disposing of quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decision of the appellate authorities. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. In view of these observations of the Supreme Court, the respondents were bound to give effect to the order of the Collector of Customs dated 5-7-1984.
5. In the premises, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The bond or bonds furnished by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order to stand discharged. Respondents to pay the petitioners the costs of the petition.
