9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitions. 2. Mr.S.Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel for writ petitioners assisted by Mr.S.Siva shankar, learned counsel is before this Court. Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Panel counsel is before this Court on behalf of both respondents. To be noted, there are two respondents in all these writ petitions and both the respondents in all these ten writ petitions are official respondents. 3. The writ petitioner in each of these ten writ petitions is different. However, this Court is informed by learned counsel on both sides in unison without any disputation or disagreement that the central / core issue in all these ten writ petitions is the same. 4. It is submitted that these writ petitions pertain to import of what is described as Multi Function Devices / Machines [ MFDs for the sake of brevity] from Singapore and other countries through Chennai Port. 5. Ten different writ petitioners herein had filed different Bills of Entry pertaining to their respective consignments, all of which, this Court is informed are MFDs. 6. The details of the writ petitioners and the Bills of Entry are as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 10.12.2018 7. The central theme / core issue in these ten writ petitions, which as mentioned supra is the same. On arrival of the aforesaid consignments at Chennai, writ petitioners filed aforesaid Bills of Entry, for clearance of their respective consignments obviously upon payment of duty. It is submitted that the goods were assessed and an inspection report was filed, but the respondents are not taking any action to assess and clear consignments covered under aforesaid Bills of Entry in spite of repeated requests and reminders. 8. In the aforesaid scenario, these ten writ petitions have been filed, with prayers to Mandamus the respondents, to pass orders in respect of aforesaid Bills of Entry by taking into account the judgments of Hon ble High Court of Telengana and Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and orders of Tribunal [ CESTAT for the sake of brevity]. 9. Considering the significance of the prayers, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the prayer in the first of the writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.12812 of 2019, which reads as follows: 'Directing the respondents to pass an order in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and Telengana at Hyderabad vide order dated 06.04.2018 in W.P. No.2728 of 2018, which order came to be accepted by the Central Board of Indirect Tax Customs, New Delhi, vide their communication letter dated 14.06.2018, deciding not to file SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court as against the said order and also by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.07.2018.' 15. To be noted, learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that the prayers in the earlier writ petitions being W.P.No.26049 of 2018 etc., batch, the first of the writ petitioner's prayer is extracted and reproduced supra and the prayers in the instant ten writ petitions are the same. 16. Most relevant portion of order of the learned Single Judge is contained in Paragraphs 22 to 27 and the same reads as follows: ' 22. My attention is drawn to a judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Athul Automations Private Limited in Civil Appeal Nos.1057, 1058, 1060 1059 of 2019 dated January 24 of 2019. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court was concerned with a challenge to an order of the Customs Excise and Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petitions, would be decided.? 25. The aforesaid direction has been passed in those cases where the importers have challenged the policy itself. Since none of the petitioners before me have challenged the Policy, the rationale of the above order of the Division Bench will not apply to them. 26. The authorities are also at liberty to initiate proceedings for assessment and adjudication of the consignments in question, in terms of the applicable statutory provisions and in accordance with law. 27. These writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.' 17. As mentioned supra, when the matter was carried in appeal by way of intra court appeals to a Hon ble Division Bench, the Division Bench, allowed the writ appeals and most relevant portion of orders of Hon ble Division Bench are contained in Paragraphs 26 to 29, which read as follows: '26.Considering the factual position, the respondent would not be entitled to make a prayer for provisional clearance, as there is non compliance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 07.09.2012, 25.06.2013 and 07.11.2014 issued by Meity. Therefore, we direct the appellants to commence adjudication process and show cause notice be issued to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. After affording reasonable time to the respondents to submit their reply to the show cause notice, the case be adjudicated on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Authorized Representative of the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.' 18. It is submitted that the aforesaid order of the Hon ble Division Bench is now governing the field. 19. In the light of the trajectory, which the earlier set of writ petitions with similar prayers have taken, it follows as an inevitable sequitur that the instant writ petitions, have to be dismissed following the judgments of Hon ble Division Bench being order dated 25.04.2019 made in W.A.Nos.1215 of 2019 etc., batch. 20. Be that as it may, a perusal of paragraph 29 of the order of the Hon ble Division Bench, which has als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
