9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allegation of undervaluation of imported consignment. 2. Delay in finalizing the bill of entry. 3. Proper authority to decide upon the question of classification. 4. Allegation of mala fide issuance of show-cause notice. Analysis: The petitioner imported glass beads, and a show-cause notice was issued alleging undervaluation of the consignment. The notice claimed a significant difference in valuation and raised doubts about the nature of the imported goods. The petitioner responded to the notice, but the Collector of Customs failed to conduct the scheduled hearing, causing delays in the proceedings. The petitioner, through their counsel, relied on previous court decisions to support their case, arguing against the suspicion raised by the respondents regarding the nature of the goods. The judge noted that the delay in the proceedings amounted to a denial of justice, especially considering the petitioner's efforts to comply with the requirements. The judge expressed skepticism about the basis of the show-cause notice, suggesting it was issued mala fide. The court emphasized the importance of timely justice delivery and the need to prevent undue delays in such matters. An interim order was issued directing the unconditional release of the consignment to the petitioner within a specified timeframe. The court allowed the department to continue its proceedings but mandated that any future orders or levies must align with the final outcome of the writ petition. The respondents were required to file an affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks, with a subsequent affidavit-in-reply to be filed a week later. The court refused to stay the operation of its order, emphasizing the need for timely resolution of the case. All parties were instructed to act in accordance with the court's directives, ensuring compliance with the issued order.
|
