9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 570 - HC - CustomsAmendment in Import General Manifest (IGM) - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of M/s. Agrocorp International Pte Ltd Versus The Union of India and Others 2016 (12) TMI 1312 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that it is entirely for the authorities to act in terms of the powers conferred by the Act of 1962. The authorities cannot refuse to act merely because there is an allegation of a wrongful act or there is a protest raised - petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to amend Import General Manifest under Customs Act, 1962 and allow clearance of goods. Analysis: Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel and respondent nos. 2 and 3, the court passed an order where the respondent's affidavit was taken on record, and the petitioner's counsel agreed to make an additional attempt to serve notices personally to respondent nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner's counsel argued that the order sought would not prejudice the rights of respondent nos. 4 and 5, citing a similar case. The matter was adjourned to a later date for further proceedings. At the subsequent hearing, the petitioner's counsel provided an affidavit proving service of the writ petition to respondent nos. 4 and 5. It was noted that although respondent nos. 4 and 5 did not accept the packets, the court was satisfied that they were aware of the petition. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 stated they acted as per a circular, but there was a dispute regarding an objection certificate. The petitioner sought an amendment to the Import General Manifest, referencing a previous court order from 2016. Considering the previous judgment and protecting the interests of all parties, the court directed the concerned authority to consider the application for amendment to the Import General Manifest. The petitioner was required to execute an indemnity bond in favor of the authorities to indemnify them against any claims or protests raised by private parties regarding the goods. The court clarified that its order did not express an opinion on the rival contentions and allowed respondent nos. 4 and 5 to pursue legal remedies. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
|
