9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to clear the consignment in question, subject to the some conditions - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - W. P. No. 24417 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2014 - T. S. Sivagnanam,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Viswanathan For the Respondents : Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order dated 19.6.2014 issued by the third respondent under Section 110A of Customs Act 1962 (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'Act'). 2. The petitioner filed a Bill of Entry bearing No.3016821 dated 17.8.2013 and sought for assessment and clearance of the consignment comprising different models of coin cell type watch batt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l duty i.e., ₹ 4,77,092/- by way of 20% cash deposit and remaining 100% by way of Bank Guarantee; (c) Execution of Bond for the full enhanced value. The petitioner, being aggrieved over the condition No.2, is now before this court. 3. The writ petition was entertained and notice was ordered to the respondents. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, adjudication proceedings was taken up and the petitioner pursued their claim and the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Exports) has passed the order-in-original dated 1.7.2014, by which, the Retail Sale Prices of the consignment in question declared by the petitioner was declared as wrong declaration and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fact, the petitioner complied with the order-in-original by paying differential duty. The said order would be more beneficial than the impugned order, which impose higher liability on the petitioner for provisional release of the consignment in question. Therefore, the question as to whether, the impugned order dated 19.6.2014 passed under section 110A of the Act would stand or merged with the order-in-original dated 1.7.2014, need not be gone into at this stage and the same is left over. 7.Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order-in-original dated 1.7.2014 and taking note of the only allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner made wrong declaration of assessable value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
