9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1131 - HC - CustomsProvisional release of seized goods - Fortified Refined Palm Olein Oil - case made out by the Customs Authorities is that the order was obtained by suppression of material facts that were very much relevant to the case - time limitation - 2nd Proviso to Section 110(2) of Customs Act - HELD THAT - There is a clear case of suppression of material facts by the petitioner. In the light of the same, the order passed is hereby recalled. The petitioner is further saddled with costs of ₹ 50,000/- for having obtained the order from this Court by the above suppression of material facts. It is trite law that when a petitioner approaches the special jurisdiction of this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus, the Court expects that the petitioner has come with clean hands and relying on the principle of uberrima fides, the Court passes orders at an interim stage. On coming to light of the suppression, it is the duty of the Court to recall its order and also impose costs upon the petitioner for such an act. Application for modification allowed.
Issues:
1. Application for modification filed by the Commissioner of Customs seeking to modify an order passed by the Court. 2. Allegation of suppression of material facts by the petitioner. 3. Legal principles regarding suppression of facts in a writ petition. 4. Recall of the order passed on November 27, 2019. 5. Imposition of costs on the petitioner for suppression of material facts. 6. Dismissal of the contempt application. 7. Dismissal of the writ petition due to suppression of material facts. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an application for modification filed by the Commissioner of Customs seeking to modify an order passed by the Court on November 27, 2019. The Customs Authorities alleged that the order was obtained by suppression of material facts relevant to the case, specifically the provisional release of Fortified Refined Palm Olein Oil, which was not disclosed in the writ petition. 2. The Customs Authorities argued that the 2nd Proviso to Section 110(2) applied in this case, and the petitioner had not informed the Court about the provisional release of goods as per Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court found a clear case of suppression of material facts by the petitioner, relying on legal precedents, and recalled the order passed on November 27, 2019. 3. The Court emphasized the importance of petitioners approaching the Court with clean hands when seeking a Writ of Mandamus. It highlighted the principle of uberrima fides and stated that on discovering the suppression of facts, it was the Court's duty to recall its order and impose costs on the petitioner for such actions. 4. The judgment also addressed a contempt application filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed following the recall of the order dated November 27, 2019. Additionally, the writ petition (W.P. 20897 of 2019) was treated as on the day's list for hearing and subsequently dismissed due to the suppression of material facts. 5. As a consequence of the suppression of material facts, costs were imposed on the petitioner, amounting to ?50,000, to be deposited with the IDIA Charitable Trust within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The petitioner was required to file a report of compliance within one week thereafter, and parties were to receive a certified copy of the order upon fulfilling all formalities.
|
