9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 257 - HC - CustomsProceedings in terms of Rule 11 and 12 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 - grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is illegally releasing the container belonging to the petitioner against the terms of the regulations - Held that - Since, the prayer sought for in this writ petition is limited for issuing a direction to the 3rd respondent to initiate proceedings and as it is now stated by the 1st to 3rd respondents that already investigation has commenced, this Court is not inclined to express any view on the merits of the contention made by the petitioner or the 4th respondent, since it is for them to cooperate with investigation and allow the Adjudicating Authority to pass appropriate orders after completion of such investigation - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Prayer for Mandamus directing 3rd respondent to initiate proceedings under Regulations 11 and 12 of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 against 4th respondent. Analysis: The petitioner sought a Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to initiate proceedings against the 4th respondent for allegedly illegally releasing a container against regulations. The court noted that an investigation by the Department of Chennai Customs was already underway, as confirmed by the learned counsel for the 1st to 3rd respondents. The Deputy Commissioner Customs had addressed a letter indicating the ongoing investigation. The counsel for the 4th respondent requested time to file a counter. The court refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the petitioner's or the 4th respondent's contentions, emphasizing the need for cooperation with the investigation and allowing the Adjudicating Authority to make appropriate decisions post-investigation. The court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to both the petitioner and the 4th respondent to cooperate with the investigation. The court highlighted that since the investigation had already commenced, it was not inclined to delve into the merits of the case. The parties were directed to file any application for interim relief during the investigation process. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
