9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of auction notice and proceedings 2. Confirmation of custom duty demand with interest 3. Failure to fulfill conditions of Notification No. 30/97 and EXIM policy 4. Lack of particulars of goods pending clearance at Moradabad 5. Stay on auction of goods at Moradabad Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought the quashing of an auction notice and proceedings along with an order confirming a custom duty demand with interest. The impugned order related to goods imported at Delhi, with a demand for failure to fulfill notification conditions and EXIM policy requirements. The auction notice was issued for goods at Moradabad, scheduled for auction on 22-4-2004. However, the petition lacked specifics about goods pending clearance at Moradabad, causing uncertainty about potential auctioned items. 2. The petitioner's apprehension was that goods at Moradabad might be auctioned due to non-compliance with the custom duty demand. The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner couldn't seek a stay based on the order without specifying the goods or imports. The lack of details in the petition meant the petitioner relied on a public notice for court intervention. 3. The senior counsel for the petitioner offered to deposit the demanded amount with interest within 15 days to prevent the auction of goods at Moradabad. The court ordered the deposit within the specified time, with a provision to halt the confirmation of sales for petitioner's goods auctioned on 22-4-2004. However, the order clarified that goods auctioned due to violations other than the impugned order wouldn't benefit from the stay. The petitioner was advised to use statutory remedies to challenge the order confirming the custom duty demand. This judgment highlights the importance of providing specific details in a petition to seek legal remedies effectively and the court's approach to balancing the interests of parties involved in customs duty disputes and auction proceedings.
|
