Judgment:
ORDER
A.S. Anand, C.J.
1. Against an order of adjudication passed by the Collector of Customs, Madurai dated 25.9.1990, instead of preferring an appeal, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 17225 of 1990. The Writ Petition was ordered on 9.11.1990. The learned Single Judge, following an earlier judgment of another learned single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 14369 of 1990 directed that the goods should be released on payment of the penalty imposed in cash and on furnishing bank guarantee for the redemption fine. The learned single Judge also held that in all other respects the appellant had the liberty to file an appeal and seek redress of his grievances. An indulgence was shown, however, that in the event the goods are released on payment of the penalty in cash and on furnishing of a bank guarantee for the redemption fine, the predeposit necessary for filing an appeal shall be dispensed with. Subsequently it appears that the writ petition and a batch of other writ petitions were posted for being mentioned before the learned single Judge and by the order dated 20th December, 1990, the learned Single Judge, at the instance of the Revenue and after hearing the earned Counsel for the appellant as well, imposed another condition with a view to allay the apprehension of the Revenue that the goods if released should not be used as garments by restitching the mutilated parts. It was directed that:
the goods shall be released subject to the condition already imposed by me and with a further condition that it is for the Revenue to be satisfied about the mutilation of the goods. If the Revenue feels that the mutilation is not sufficient, they can cause the goods to be mutilated at the expense of the petitioners up to a maximum of four pieces in respect of each article.
It is against this direction that the present appeal has been filed.
2. A perusal of the order of adjudication dated 25.9.1990 shows that the adjudicating authority had found that the mutilation was not sufficient. The adjudicating authority while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, ordered the confiscation of the rags valued Rs. 4,12,110/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of I & E (C) Act, 1947. The authority, however, permitted the importers to release the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,24,000/- in lieu of confiscation plus appropriate customs duty. The authority had directed:
complete mutilation of the goods under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962, to satisfy the norms of P.N. 1/88 dated 6.6.1988. The costs of mutilation shall be borne by the importers.
3. Mr. Krishnamoorthy, earned Counsel for the appellant submitted that after having directed the confiscation of goods it was not open to the authority to impose conditions for the release of the goods other than on payment of fine and penalty. In other words what the earned Counsel contended was that the direction for mutilation of the goods could not have been given by the adjudicating authority and that the learned single Judge also could not have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, issued direction as has been noticed in an earlier part of this judgment. We are unable to agree with the submission. It is only in the event the appellant chooses to get the goods released which had been confiscated by the order of the adjudicating authority that he shall have to comply with the condition of mutilation of the goods besides payment of fine, penalty and customs duty etc. In case the appellant does not choose to exercise the option, there is no obligation on him to get the goods mutilated. The learned single Judge took note of the situation and the purpose for which the condition of premutilation had been imposed in the Import Policy and imposed additional condition to the effect that if the Revenue felt that the mutilation was not sufficient, they could cause the goods to be mutilated at the instance of the appellant up to a maximum of 4 pieces in respect of each article. The learned single Judge, therefore, in our opinion exercised his discretion both judiciously and properly in imposing the condition as noticed hereinabove. Since the adjudicating authority itself had found that the rags which were attempted to be imported were not completely mutilated in conformity with the norms prescribed under the Import Policy, the further condition imposed by the learned single Judge for mutilation of the goods before they arc released cannot be questioned as it is in conformity with the policy by which there was prohibition to import woollen garments excepting in premutilated form.
4. Earned Counsel then lastly submitted that since the appellant intends to file an appeal against the order of adjudication, it may be clarified that the condition imposed by the learned single Judge with regard to the further mutilation if the Revenue is not satisfied with the mutilation of the rags after payment of fine etc., as a condition for release of the goods, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the interpretation of Section 24 of the Customs Act so that the matter can be agitated by him before the appellate authority. We clarify that it shall be open to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the learned single Judge in the matter of imposition of conditions for the release of the goods which stand confiscated.
5. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.