9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Modification of an order for release of imported goods. 2. Validity of extension of time for issuing a Show Cause Notice under the Customs Act. 3. Compliance with conditions for release of goods. 4. Allegations of suppression of facts by Customs Authorities. 5. Interpretation of Customs (Provisional Duty and Assessment) Regulations. 6. Ownership of goods subject to seizure. 7. Consent order variation and contempt of court. 8. Application of Regulation 4 of 1963 Regulations. Analysis: 1. The respondent sought modification of an order for the release of goods imported by the writ petitioners, subject to payment of Duty and execution of a bond. The order was passed based on suggestions by the parties, and compliance was to result in the release of goods within 72 hours. 2. The goods, Fax Machines, were seized under the Customs Act, and the petitioners sought warehousing pending investigation. An extension was granted for issuing a Show Cause Notice, which the petitioners contested citing judicial decisions. The representation for release was made after the expiry of the extended period. 3. Despite compliance with conditions for release, the goods were not released due to alleged defects in the bond submitted by the petitioners. The Customs Authorities were notified of non-compliance, and a modification application was filed by the respondent. 4. The Customs Authorities alleged suppression of facts by the petitioners regarding provisional assessment and offers to deposit the Duty difference. Concerns were raised about the petitioners' financial capacity to meet Customs demands. 5. Customs Authorities argued that further deposit beyond 20% of Duty was permissible under the Regulations. They also raised doubts about the petitioners' assets and the right to claim return of seized goods. 6. The petitioners opposed the modification application, citing the order as a consent order that could not be varied unilaterally. They maintained that there was a continuous seizure of goods and disputed the relevance of certain letters. 7. The Court dismissed the modification application, emphasizing that the order was passed after due consideration and opportunity for the Customs Authorities to present their case. Allegations of recent knowledge and potential revenue loss were deemed insufficient for order recall. 8. The Court declined to address other points raised, highlighting the negligence of Customs officers in presenting relevant facts to their Counsel. The application was dismissed with costs, and the assurance of not seeking goods' release was discharged. 9. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding consent orders and avoiding uncertainties in litigation concluded by mutual agreement. The application for modification was rejected based on the facts and circumstances presented.
|
