Bombay High Court Stays Customs Appellate Order That Contravened Its Own Prior Directions for Release of Imported Goods
Case Overview
Case Name: Raj Grow Impex LLP Vs Union of India And Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court
Petition Number: Writ Petition (St.) No. 24 of 2021
Date of Order: 05/01/2021
Background and Context
This matter arose from a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court, challenging an appellate order dated 24th December, 2020, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai (Zone-1). The challenge was rooted in a fundamental conflict between the directions issued by the High Court in earlier proceedings and the subsequent action taken by the lower appellate authority — an action that the High Court found to be not merely erroneous, but prima facie contumacious.
To fully appreciate the gravity of the situation, it is essential to trace the procedural history that preceded the impugned order.
Earlier Proceedings and the High Court's Prior Orders
Order Dated 15th October, 2020
In an earlier connected matter — Writ Petition (L) No. 3502 of 2020 — the Bombay High Court had examined the conduct of the customs authorities with respect to the detention of goods imported by Raj Grow Impex LLP. The Court, while disposing of that petition, made the following critical observations recorded in its judgment:
"We have already discussed and noted that the order-in-original is holding the field. The same has neither been set aside nor stayed. Interestingly, respondent Nos.4 to 6 in para 16 of their affidavit have themselves admitted that the redemption fine and personal fine were levied proportionately to the quantity declared in the bills of entry. Petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions of the order-in-original and made the necessary payments. Out of charge has been issued. Because of warehousing of the goods under section 49 of the Customs Act, petitioner is required to pay a substantial amount to the customs authority. In the above context and after thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we are of the view that non-release or withholding of the imported goods of the petitioner any further would not be just and proper."
The Court had directed the respondents — particularly respondent Nos. 4 to 7 — to forthwith release the goods covered under the following Bills of Entry:
- Bills of Entry Nos. 5720040, 5720192, 572069, 5722458, 5722730, 5719772, 5722243 and 5722456, all dated 18.11.2019 (in the primary writ petition)
- Bills of Entry Nos. 5520732, 5520871 and 5520536, all dated 01.11.2019 (in Writ Petition No. 3502 of 2020)
Notably, when the learned Additional Solicitor General made an oral prayer that the effect of the judgment be kept in abeyance to allow the respondents to approach the Supreme Court, the High Court expressly rejected that prayer.
Order Dated 9th December, 2020
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an interim application pointing out that prayer clause (c) in Writ Petition (L) No. 3502 of 2020 had been inadvertently omitted from consideration and relief in the judgment dated 15th October, 2020. This prayer had sought a direction to the respondents to release imported goods covered by seven additional Bills of Entry — bearing Nos. 5520537, 5520538, 5520539, 5520540, 5520541, 5520872 and 5521191 — on payment of redemption fine and penalty.