9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Ms. Lakshmi Sriram For the Respondents : Mr. K. Mohanamural, Sr. Panel Counsel ORDER The present writ petition is the third round of litigation seeking for the same prayer as that of the prayer made in the earlier two round of litigations viz. seeking writ of mandamus to direct 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, 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 ₹ 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' and raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any orders, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by way of third round of litigation to implement the above said two orders of this Court. 4. Considering the nature of the prayer made by the petitioner as stated supra, when the matter was taken up on 02.06.2015, this Court directed the second respondent / the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, to appear before this Court. Accordingly, today, he appeared before this Court by filing a counter affidavit. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that after the order passed by this Court on 20.11.2009 in W.A.No.1450 of 2009, it was found on scrutiny that the original triplicate copies of the Bills of Entries were not produced by the importer/petitioner herein, therefore, a detailed letter was sent to the petitioner on 01.03.2010 informing them about the documents required for finalizing the assessment. On receipt of the same, the petitioner also gave his reply on 05.03.2010 requesting grant of refund. Thereafter, a note was also sent to the legal section on 07.04.2010 for acceptance or otherwise of the order passed by this Court on 20.11.2009. In the meanwhile, one another order was pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inalize 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 01.04.2015. Therefore, this Court, by considering the fact that the second respondent has joined the duty only on 01.04.2015, is not inclined to proceed against him for non-implementation of the order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench in W.A.No.1450 of 2009, dated 20.11.2009 and one another order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32961 of 2012, dated 07.01.2013, as admittedly the said officer was not holding the charge then. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of record for wilful disobedience of the Court's order, the Hon'ble Division Bench concluded that Article 215 does not restrict the power of the Court to impose punishment and thereby, came down heavily against the contemnors therein and imposed costs of ₹ 1,00,000/- payable to the petitioner therein. 9. Recently, our Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in K.K.Ramesh v. the Government of Tamil Nadu (W.P.No.20002 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014), showing expressive concern on the delay and non-implementation of the Court order, has directed the Chief Secretary of this State to examine this problem and issue necessary circular to all the departments asking them to implement the Court order, by making it further clear that violation of the direction would invite administrative / disciplinary action. Such observation of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court squarely covers the facts and circumstances 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 im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
