9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion thereof. The petitioner has so far not filed any reply. If the petitioner wishes, such replies may be filed latest by 10.12.2018. The petitioner shall cooperate with the adjudication of such notices. The amount demanded by the department and the recovery of which is made a precondition for clearing the future Bills of Entry of the petitioner is the same for which the department has issued show cause notices to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner why such demands should not be confirmed. On the other hand, the department seeks recovery of such amount coercively by blocking the petitioner's future clearances. Obviously, there cannot be recovery coercively made even before the demand is confirmed. The respondents are directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bills of Entry late but showed in the system as if it was filed as Advance Bill of Entry . As a result, the Customs' system treated these Bills of Entry as advance and assessment was completed accordingly. According to the department, the petitioner in the process avoided late payment charges. 4.2 According to the department, several other Customs brokers had employed the same modus operandi. The department detected such irregularities and estimated that the late payment charges in all to the tune of approximately ₹ 9 Crores became recoverable. So far as the petitioner is concerned, this amount is estimated at ₹ 89 Lacs. 4.3 The department, it appears, took up the issue with the concerned Custom brokers. Many of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority. In the context of the challenge to show cause notice, learned counsel submitted that the contents of the notice would suggest that the authority has prejudged the issue. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the department submitted that the petitioner had adopted an irregular procedure to avoid late fine charges. When it was detected, the petitioner was asked to pay up the same. According to him, the action of the department is just and proper. He further submitted that the petitioner has not filed reply to the show cause notices, instead, he has directly challenged the same before the High Court. 7. In so far as the challenge to the show cause notices is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere. The allegations mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the department is paid up. In other words, in the present case, unless and until the petitioner pays up the entire amount of ₹ 89 Lacs, future clearances of the Bills of Entry filed by the petitioner would not be permitted. In our opinion, this would be wholly impermissible. The amount demanded by the department and the recovery of which is made a precondition for clearing the future Bills of Entry of the petitioner is the same for which the department has issued show cause notices to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner why such demands should not be confirmed. On the other hand, the department seeks recovery of such amount coercively by blocking the petitioner's future clearances. Obviously, there cannot be recovery c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
