2015 (8) TMI 676 - HC - Customs

Refund of Deposit Demurrage, wharffage and stock loss charges Inclusion in Assessment Value Vide order dated 20.11.2009, respondent was directed not to include demurrage, wharffage and stock loss charges into assessable value, however, in spite that, second respondent has not finalised assessment of 63 imports already made Held that - Respondents have not come forward to offer any explanation for non-implementation of said orders Petitioner made various representations, to finalise pending assessment, sadly respondent department has not replied positively to finalise assessment to refund deposit with interest Clear that petitioner was made to fight long battle resulting in physical and mental harassment apart from financial implications Therefore, exemplary costs imposed upon respondent-department for wasting precious time of Court Petition allowed Decided in favour of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-finalization of assessment relating to imports as per court directions.
2. Delay in implementing court orders by the respondent department.
3. Refusal to consider representations made by the petitioner.
4. Legal consequences of non-compliance with court orders.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Non-finalization of assessment
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to finalize the assessment of imports in accordance with court directions. The dispute arose from the inclusion of certain charges in the assessable value by the second respondent, leading to additional customs duty demands. Despite multiple court orders directing the finalization of assessment without including these charges, the assessment was not completed for 63 imports, prompting the petitioner to file a third round of litigation seeking implementation of the court orders.

Issue 2: Delay in implementing court orders
The respondent department failed to implement court orders despite repeated directions. The second respondent's non-compliance was attributed to the absence of original documents required for assessment finalization. The court criticized the department for inaction and highlighted the petitioner's efforts to follow up on the pending assessment, emphasizing the department's failure to respond positively. The court noted the department's lack of explanation for the delay and questioned why steps were not taken to accept the court's order promptly.

Issue 3: Refusal to consider representations
The petitioner's representations for finalizing the assessment were consistently ignored by the respondent department, leading to the filing of additional writ petitions. Despite court directives to rework and finalize the assessment, the department did not comply, showcasing a disregard for the court's orders and the petitioner's requests. The court expressed disappointment over the department's non-implementation of court orders, emphasizing the statutory obligation to adhere to such directives.

Issue 4: Legal consequences of non-compliance
Citing precedents, the court highlighted the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring compliance with court orders. Referring to judgments on contempt of court and administrative actions for non-implementation of orders, the court imposed exemplary costs on the respondent department for failing to comply with court directives. The court directed the completion of necessary actions within a specified timeframe and emphasized the repercussions of non-compliance, including the recovery of imposed costs from responsible individuals.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, imposed costs on the respondent department, directed the completion of pending actions, and emphasized the significance of adhering to court orders to uphold the rule of law and prevent further delays and non-compliance.