Tribunal has Power to Direct Provisional Release of Seized Gold, Jewelry and Silver: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

The High Court of Delhi, while addressing the substantial question of law and upholding the orders of the Tribunal held that the power and jurisdiction of the Tribunal, hearing an appeal against an order of provisional release, is coequal with the power exercised by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal has the power to direct provisional release, as well as to fix the terms.

The ADG, DRI, rejected the request, of the respondent, for provisional release of the seized gold, gold jewelry, and silver by opining that “it would be premature to arrive at any conclusion, about the provisional release of seized goods, before completion of adjudication proceedings”. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred Customs Appeal before the CESTAT.

The impugned Final Order of the CESTAT permits provisional release of gold jewelry, seized at the Indira Gandhi International Airport and of gold, gold pieces, gold dust, gold jewelry, and silver, seized from the workshop/office premises of the respondent. Both seizures were affected on  April 25, 2019.

The respondent authority contended that the Tribunal erred in allowing the provisional release of the seized gold, gold jewelry, and silver.

The single-judge bench of Chief Justice C. Hari Shankar while addressing the substantial question of law and upholding the orders of the Tribunal held that the power and jurisdiction of the Tribunal, hearing an appeal against an order of provisional release, is coequal with the power exercised by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal has the power to direct provisional release, as well as to fix the terms.

“In the present case, no question of substitution, by the learned Tribunal, of its view, for the discretion of the adjudicating authority, arises, as the adjudicating authority, i.e. the learned ADG, DRI, vide his order dated 4th October 2019, never proceeded to fix any terms for provisional release, but held, instead, that it would be premature to arrive at any conclusion, about the provisional release of the seized goods, before completion of adjudication proceedings. The learned Tribunal held that this view was palpably untenable, and amounts to a complete negation of Section 110A of the Act. We agree with the decision of the learned Tribunal, and uphold the quashing of the order, dated 4th October 2019, of the learned ADG, DRI,” the court noted.

“There shall be no misuse or illegal diversion of the gold, gold jewelry and silver, being provisionally released to the respondent. For this purpose, the premises of the respondent would be kept open for inspection by the appellant, at all points of time, and all utilization/sale of the gold, gold jewelry or silver shall be duly accounted for. We direct that weekly account statements, in that regard, shall be furnished, by the respondent, to the appeal,” the court directed.