9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .A.No.1450 of 2009, dated 20.11.2009, and the direction of the learned Judge in W.P.No.32961 of 2012, dated 07.01.2013 and thereby direct them to refund the deposit of Rs. 22,11,379/- collected from the petitioner with interest. 2. It is the claim of the petitioner that the second respondent has completed provisional assessments by orders dated 18.06.1996 and 11.07.1996 respectively under the Customs Act, 1962, whereby he finalized the provisional assessments in respect of import of Superior Kerosene Oil made by the petitioner from 1994 to 1998 in respect of ten Bills of Entry. However, the grievance of the petitioner is, the second respondent has wrongly included the demurrage charges, wharrfage and stock loss under 'assessable value& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2009, allowed the writ appeal directing the respondent not to include demurrage, wharffage and stock loss charges into the assessable value. However, in spite of such direction, the second respondent has not finalised the assessment of the 63 imports already made by them. Therefore, they were constrained to file another writ petition in W.P.No.32961 of 2012 seeking a direction to the respondents to finalise the assessment relating to the imports in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble First Bench as stated supra. This Court, by order dated 07.01.2013, once again directed the second respondent to rework and finalize the assessment in terms of paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the order passed in W.A.No.1450 of 2009, dated 20.11.2009. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter. Thereafter, the said file was also sent to the legal section for acceptance or otherwise on 20.02.2013. In this process, it was also brought to the notice of the department that a similar case is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court for the same importer / petitioner herein and that the Mangalore Customs was asked to inform the Chennai Custom House with respect to the case details. Subsequently, it was ascertained that both the cases were different because the case in Chennai pertained to the period from July 2001 to March 2003. Only thereafter, the order passed by this Court on 07.01.2013 in W.P.No.32961 of 2012 was accepted by the Commissioner on 18.05.2013. However, in order to finalize the assessment for which original documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessment without including demurrage charges, wharrfage and stock loss under the 'assessable value'. Ironically, the respondents have not even come forward to offer any explanation for non-implementation of the above said orders of this Court. Therefore, when the matter was taken up on 02.06.2015, this Court directed the second respondent to appear before this Court. Accordingly, today, Mr.K.Vijayakrishnavelan, Assistant Commissioner, Chennai / second respondent herein appeared before this Court. Learned standing counsel for the respondents stated that the second respondent cannot be held responsible for non-implementation of the order passed by this Court on 20.11.2009 in W.A.No.1450 of 2009, as he joined the office only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the petitioner, finding that the respondents have not obeyed the order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court and refused to consider the several representations made by him, was constrained to file one another Writ Petition in W.P.No.32961 of 2012, dated 07.01.2013, seeking a peculiar prayer for a direction to the respondents to finalise the assessment relating to the imports in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble First Bench in W.A.No.1450 of 2009, dated 20.11.2009. Although the said prayer was allowed with a direction to the second respondent to rework and finalise the assessment in terms of paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench, again, the respondent department has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the present case. 10. Further, from the above said undisputed facts, it is clear that the petitioner has been made to fight a long battle resulting in physical and mental harassment apart from financial implications. When a case like this absolutely warrants imposition of damages, a let-loose and slight approach would only further encourage the authorities in playing foul games even before Courts. Therefore, although this Court can direct the Government to initiate departmental action against all those officers responsible for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court as stated supra, while refraining from doing so, this Court, falling in line with the Division Bench decision in G.Rajaram's case (cited supra), d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
