9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1220 - HC - CustomsEarly disposal of the applications - abandonment of five containers of imported goods in terms of provisions of section 23(2) of the Act - HELD THAT - The impugned communication dated 4 April 2019 does not reflect / indicate the basis for exercise of powers under Section 28(9A)(a) of the Act. Therefore, unable to fathom the reasons for keeping the present proceedings in abeyance - the impugned communication dated 4 April 2019 is set aside. So far as the Petitioner s applications dated 9 January 2019 and 16 April 2019 are concerned, the Respondent No.3 will dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of three weeks from today. We are of the view that the Commissioner of Customs would make an endeavour to dispose of the application as quickly as possible. Petition disposed off.
Issues: Challenge to communication under section 28(9A)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; Delay in disposal of applications seeking relief for abandonment of imported goods under section 23(2) of the Act.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged a communication dated 4 April 2019 by the Commissioner of Customs under section 28(9A)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner also highlighted delays in disposing of applications related to the abandonment of imported goods under section 23(2) of the Act during the admission hearing. 2. The petitioner argued that section 28(9A)(a) did not apply to their case as no relevant order had been passed, and the issue was already covered by a decision of the jurisdictional High Court. This contention was presented by Mr. Shah on behalf of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, representing the respondents, mentioned that the impugned communication was based on an order related to M/s. Sahayadri Starch and Industries Pvt. Ltd. by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue had appealed against this order in the High Court. 4. The Court observed that the communication of 4 April 2019 did not provide the basis for invoking powers under section 28(9A)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the Court could not ascertain the reasons for delaying the proceedings. 5. Mr. Jetly, representing the Revenue, acknowledged the lack of clarity in the communication and did not contest the Court's position. As a result, the communication of 4 April 2019 was set aside by the Court. 6. The Court directed the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Respondent No.3, to consider the petitioner's representation within a week and make an appropriate decision based on the unique circumstances of the case. 7. Regarding the pending applications dated 9 January 2019 and 16 April 2019, the Court instructed Respondent No.3 to dispose of them expeditiously within three weeks while ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. 8. Finally, the petition was disposed of with all contentions left open for future consideration.
|
