COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. GARG STEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application filed by the Revenue (Appellant)) seeks stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein mutilation of the imported goods was allowed by the lower appellate authority. The Revenue, in the captioned appeal, is up in arms against such mutilation. Ld. SDR has sought to explain the Revenue's challenge to mutilation. It is submitted that, if the impugned order allowing mutilation of the goods is not stayed, the goods will get mutilated to the detriment of the Revenue. This plea is vehemently opposed by ld. Counsel, who submits that this Tribunal has allowed mutilation of imported goods in similar cases. Ld. SDR has, in her rejoinder, argued that, in a case like the instant one, in which mis -declaration of imported goods stands proved beyond doubt, there is no question of allowing mutilation. She has relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in the matter of UOI v. Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd. [2001 (132) E.L.T. 526 (S.C.)] wherein the Court held against permitting mutilation of goods in a case of proven mis -declaration.

(2.) I have examined the rival submissions. I wanted ld. Counsel to produce evidence of his clients having requested for mutilation of the goods imported by them. No evidence has been made available. I also queried both sides as to whether any rules were framed by the Central Government under Section 24 of the Customs Act providing for mutilation of imported goods. Ld. SDR has submitted that no such rules have been framed. I am at a loss to understand as to how any authority can venture into permitting mutilation of the imported goods without the requisite statutory mechanism for implementing it. In the instant case, as noted above, the respondents have not shown that they ever requested for mutilation of the goods imported by them, nor has the appellant cited the requisite rules providing for such mutilation. Apparently, therefore, Section 24 has been erroneously pressed into service in this case. Therefore, I think, I have adequate reason to stay the operation of the impugned order. It is ordered accordingly.