1984 (11) TMI 73 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure of the Union of India, the Collector of Customs, and the Assistant Collector of Customs to file an affidavit leading to an ex-parte proceeding.
2. Dispute regarding payment of customs duty on over-carried cases.
3. Justification for Customs authorities' refusal to allow clearance without re-payment of customs duty.
4. Application for remission of demurrage by the petitioners to respondent 4.
5. Restraint on respondents 1, 2, and 3 from demanding customs duty and cost allocation.

Analysis:

1. The judgment highlighted the absence of an affidavit from the Union of India, the Collector of Customs, and the Assistant Collector of Customs, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The court expressed disappointment over the frequent absence of government counsel during hearings, emphasizing the importance of their presence in legal proceedings.

2. The case involved a contract for the purchase of rock roller bits, where 17 cases were over-carried by the vessel, leading to a dispute over the payment of customs duty. The petitioners paid customs duty on the bits initially, but Customs authorities refused clearance without re-payment of duty on the over-carried cases, prompting the petition seeking justice.

3. The judgment found no justification for the Customs authorities' refusal to allow clearance of the 17 over-carried cases without re-payment of customs duty. With no affidavit or argument justifying the Customs authorities' stance, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, making the petition absolute against respondents 1 to 3.

4. Regarding respondent 4, the court suggested the petitioners apply for remission of demurrage, with a bank guarantee in place to protect respondent 4. The petitioners were given a timeline to apply for remission, and respondent 4 was directed to decide on the application within a specified period while refraining from enforcing the bank guarantee immediately.

5. The judgment concluded by restraining respondents 1, 2, and 3 from demanding customs duty payment on the 17 cases and ordered them to pay the petitioners' costs. However, no cost allocation was made concerning respondent 4. This comprehensive analysis addressed the key issues raised in the judgment, outlining the court's decisions and directions for each aspect of the case.