2005 (1) TMI 624 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over clearance of imported goods
- Interim relief granted with bank guarantee
- Final adjudication of duty liability
- Direction for expeditious adjudication proceedings

Dispute over clearance of imported goods:
The petitioner, engaged in the import of steel pots under a valid license, faced a dispute as the respondents were not allowing clearance of imported goods under the license. The High Court granted interim relief allowing clearance of consignments upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for 25% of the differential duty in favor of the Collector of Customs and a bond for the balance. The consignments were cleared based on compliance with these conditions.

Interim relief granted with bank guarantee:
The Court's interim order facilitated the clearance of goods covered by relevant bills of entry and invoices. The petitioner was required to furnish a bank guarantee and a bond to secure the duty liability. The petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate with the adjudicating authority for finalizing the provisional assessment made by them.

Final adjudication of duty liability:
Both parties, through their respective counsels, agreed to the final adjudication of duty liability to conclude the assessment proceedings within six months. The Court acknowledged that disputed factual questions could be better resolved through departmental adjudication proceedings rather than under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Direction for expeditious adjudication proceedings:
The Court directed the Revenue to proceed with the adjudication proceedings promptly and conclude them within six months. The petitioner was instructed to keep the bank guarantee renewed and active until the completion of the adjudication proceedings and eight weeks thereafter. If the proceedings were not finalized within six months, the bank guarantee would be discharged, relieving the petitioner of the obligation.

In case of delay leading to the discharge of the bank guarantee, the Chief Commissioner was tasked with holding an inquiry to determine responsibility for the delay and any consequent loss suffered by the Revenue. The report was to be submitted to the Court within four weeks. The petition was disposed of in accordance with the order, with the rule made absolute and no order as to costs.