9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 07.07.2004 - There is a legal presumption that when the petitioner challenges the validity of an order before the Court of law or before the statutory Appellate Authority, it is presumed that all contentions have been canvassed and the Court or the Authority having rejected the challenge a second round of challenge to the same processings is not maintainable. There cannot be a piecemeal challenge especially when impugned communication is not an order, but it is only an intimation to the petitioner to pay the shortlanding charges based on an order which has attained finality - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.No.30782 of 2004 & W.P.M.P.No.37286 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the arrival of the vessel, the third respondent filed the import container list. The main line operator has instructed the petitioner by telex dated 22.02.1994 to reship the containers back to Singapore as per the instructions of the shippers at Seoul, Korea. This lead to a show cause notice being issued to the petitioner dated 01.12.1994, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount of ₹ 33,64,762/- should not be levied as duty for the goods not unloaded and why penalty should not be imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. Similar notice was also issued to the the third respondent. 5.The petitioner filed their replies dated 12.12.1994 and 30.08.1995, stating that for no fault of them, they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 122 of the Customs Act, which prescribes the pecuniary jurisdiction for the officers to adjudicate the cases of confiscation and imposition of penalty. 7.Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned communication is wholly unsustainable as the respondents have no jurisdiction to demand penalty and the contention raised by the petitioner goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the impugned communication has to be set aside. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to the order passed in the case of M/s. United Spirits Limited Vs. the Government of India and others in W.P.No.33945 of 2007 dated 22.03.2010. 8.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the above submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
