Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Commissioner Of Customs, Calcutta vs J.B. Pvt. Ltd. on 17 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(139)ELT735(TRI-KOLKATA)
JUDGMENT
V.K.Agarwal
1. Shri Samir Chakraborty, learned Advocate mentioned that in the Misc. Application M/s J.B. Pvt. Ltd. have requested to direct the Customs Authorities to implement the Tribunal's Final Order No.A-209/Cal/2000 dated 13.3.2000 allowing the re-export of the goods in question; that in fact Commissioner of Customs had allowed the re-export of the subject consignment under Order-in-Original dated 24.10.97; that though almost 4 years have lapsed since the Commissioner allowed re-export of the consignment and more than 18 months have passed since the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, they have not been allowed to reexport the consignment in question in spite of their representative meeting with the Commissioner of Customs and reminders sent to the Customs Authorities. He also mentioned that the Tribunal vide Misc. Order No.M-294-Kol/2001 dated 23.5.2001 directed the Revenue to implement the Tribunal's Order within a period of one month; that in spite of the said Misc. Order no steps have been taken to reexport of the consignment. The learned Counsel, therefore, requested that the contempt proceedings be initiated agaisnt the Customs Authorities and referred either to the High Court of Calcutta or the Supreme Court. He referred to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act which provides that every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, power and authority in respect of Contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempt of itself. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision in Sukhdev Chakraborty v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (67) ELT 198 (T) wherein the Tribunal observed as under:
"the word 'Courts subordinate to it' used in Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act is wide enough to include all the Courts judicially subordinated the High Court even though administrative control over them under Article 235 of the Constitution does not vest in the High Court. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the country in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. In such circumstances, when the orders passed by this Tribunal is not respected by the lower authorities, the Tribunal is within its right to refer the matter to the Hon'ble High Court under Section 10 of the contempt of Courts Act for intiating contempt proceedings against the authorities concerned. This view is also expressed by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 723 at page 726 in the case of K. Sarkar v. Vinay Chandra Mishra"
2. The learned Counsel mentioned that the Apex Court also in the case of K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue v. Vinay Chandra Mishra, AIR 1981 SC 723 took the same view. Finally he mentioned that the Supreme Court has observed in Union of India v. K.M.Shankarappa, 2001 (127) ELT 8 (SC) that once a quasi-judicial body like the Appellate Tribunal gives its decision "that decisions would be final and binding so far as the Executive and the Government is concerned". He, therefore, prayed that the contempt proceedings be initiated against the Customs Authorities.
3. Opposing the prayer, Shri V.K.Chakraborty, learned SDR, mentioned that the Department is intending to file a Reference Application in the Hon'ble High Court. The learned Advocate mentioned in reply that as the Final Order was passed in March, 2000, the time-limit for filing or Reference Application has lapsed in the year 2000 itself; that in absence of any stay from the High Court the Customs Authorities can not retain the consignment and they should allow its re-export.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that though the Final Order was passed by us in March 2000 rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original in which Commissioner allowed the applicants to re-export the goods, the Customs Authorities have not allowed the re-export. The Tribunal again directed the said authorities wide Misc. Order No.M/294-Kol/2001 dated 23.4.2001 to implement the Tribunal's Final Order but to no vail. We, are, therefore, constrained to direct the Revenue to implement the Tribunal's Final order dated 13.3.2000 within 6 (six) weeks from today, failing which the matter may be considered for referring to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings as requested by the applicants. Matter will come up for reporting compliance on 5.11.2001.