Judgment:
1. This is an application seeking stay of the operation of the order of the Tribunal dated 2-4-1986 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
2. Shri Thiagarajan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner initially filed a reference application against the order of the Tribunal dated 2-4-1986 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the Tribunal by order dated 27-6-1986 dismissed the Reference Application and the petitioner thereafter moved the High Court of Madras and the High Court has admitted the Reference application and the same is pending. Since the petitioner's application before the Tribunal for stay of the impuged order of the Tribunal dated 2-4-1986 was dismissed on 26-3-1987 under Number S/Qrder No. 97/87 the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 4215 of 1987 before the High Court of Madras seeking direction for staying the order of the Tribunal cited supra pending disposal of the reference application in the High Court. The High Court by order dated 24-11-1994 holding that the petitioner can move the Tribunal itself for restoration of the stay petition and seek appropriate order granted in the meantime stay for a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order of the High Court. The learned Counsel submitted that since the reference application is pending before the High Court and the petitioner is claiming the goods which have been absolutely confiscated i.e. YKK zip fasteners, in the event of the petitioner's reference application being allowed by the High Court, the petitioner would not be able to get the goods confiscated which the petitioner is claiming unless that part of the order of the Tribunal relating to confiscation absolute confiscation is stayed pending disposal of Reference in High Court or direction issued to the Department not to dispose of the goods pending disposal of the reference application by the High Court. The learned Counsel submitted that the goods in question are still available with the Department and have not been sold and the goods are not perishable.
3. Shri J.M. Jeyaseelan, the learned DR submitted that even though the goods are not perishable as such, the goods will deteriorate and lose its value by the passage of time and therefore, even if the petitioner gets an order in his favour, the petitioner can claim the sale proceeds of the goods in question.
4. We have considered the submissions made before us. As per the direction of the High Court of Madras, the stay petition earlier dismissed is now revived and is taken up. The petitioner's plea is for a direction to the Department not to dispose of the goods pending disposal of the reference application by the High Court. The goods are of foreign origin and are admittedly available with the Department and have not been disposed of. The learned counsel submitted that he will be moving the High Cmirt for early hearing of the Reference application. When the reference application itself is pending before the High Court and if the goods are not available, in the event of the petitioner getting an order in his favour, the petitioner would suffer loss and injury. To avoid such a contingency, it is but just and proper the Department is directed not to dispose of the goods till disposal of the reference application by the High Court. We also take note of the fact that the High Court while admitting the Writ Petition on 24-4-1987 granted interim stay and the interim stay continued till disposal of the Writ Petition on 24-11-1994 and apart from it, on 24-11-1994 the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition directed the Tribunal to restore the stay petition and pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties within eight weeks from the date of receipt of their order copy and "till such time the Tribunal passes final orders in the stay petition, status quo as prevailing pursuant to the interim orders granted by this Court will continue and after the disposal of the matter by the Tribunal, the rights of parties will be governed by such orders". Therefore it would be seen that the interim stay order of the High Court in the Writ petition on 24-4-1987 not only continued till disposal of the Writ petition on 24-11-1994 by the High Court but also the stay was further directed to continue till the Tribunal passed final orders on the stay petition. Therefore, when the goods have been preserved by the Department for more than 7 years, in the above circumstances, by reason of the stay order of the High Court, and when the goods are still available with the Department and when the Reference application is pending before High Court it is but proper, the Department should be directed not to dispose of the goods pending disposal of the reference application by the High Court as otherwise, in the event of the reference applicant succeeding in the High Court he would suffer loss and injury if the goods are sold in the meanwhile.
Therefore, in the above circumstances, when the goods are not perishable and the same are available with the Department, we direct the Department not to dispose of the goods pending disposal of the Reference application by the High Court. Ordered accordingly.