9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding seized goods; Ignoring findings of the Tribunal and directions of the Court; Maintainability of Writ Petition due to statutory remedy; Remarks made against Counsel; Consideration of case on merits by the Tribunal. Analysis: The petitioners challenged an order by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the seizure of bearings imported for setting up a steel plant. The goods were seized and later released to the petitioner. Despite multiple appeals and remands, the Commissioner confirmed duty, interest, and penalty. The petitioners then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, contesting the order of the Commissioner. The Court noted the objections raised by both parties and decided to address the issue through a special order for final disposal. The senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Commissioner disregarded the Tribunal's findings and directions of the Court, making unwarranted remarks against the Counsel. On the other hand, the senior Counsel for the Department raised an objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition due to the availability of a statutory remedy through an appeal to CEGAT. The Court acknowledged the statutory remedy but emphasized the importance of addressing the remarks made against the Counsel. After hearing the arguments, the Court decided to expunge certain sentences from the Commissioner's order and directed the petitioners to file an appeal to the Tribunal within four weeks. The Tribunal was instructed to consider the appeal without limitations and review the impugned order in light of specific findings and directions from previous Court orders. The Court also granted an interim order in favor of the petitioner until the Tribunal's decision. The matter was ordered to be resolved within four months from the filing of the appeal, with no costs imposed on either party.
|
