9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d damage suffered by the petitioner on account of depreciation value of subject goods and detaining the goods for unreasonable long period - defence of respondent is that there cannot be a direction to release or comply Ext.P11 final order before the period available for statutory remedy of appeal expires. HELD THAT:- This Court is constrained to observe that the respondent is not justified in waiting till the last date of limitation for filing appeal and then proceed to decide whether Ext.P11 could be implemented or not. The respondent is dealing with goods imported by petitioner. For the petitioner and its customers the goods imported is a simple commercial transaction. The law enables petitioner to lawfully sell the imported goods onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated W.P.(C) No.17553 of 2019 as the lead writ petition and have made submissions by referring to the record in W.P.(C) No.17553 of 2019. It is further stated that consideration of circumstances in lead writ petition would be sufficient for disposing of the other two writ petitions as well. W.P.(C) No.17553 of 2019 3. Data Enterprises/petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the non-implementation or noncompliance of Ext.P11 final order dated 03.04.2019 in Appeal No.C/21299/2018 as illegal, unconstitutional and unsustainable in law. The petitioner prays for a direction to respondent to issue detention certificate as per Regulation 6(1) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation 2009 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the adjudicating authority that the import has been made in violation of the Electronics and Information Technology (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 (CRO). We have perused the said order; the goods notified under the said Order; as well as the letter issued by the Jt. Secretary in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to Jt. Secretary (Customs), CBEC. The schedule attached to the CRO order specifies various goods which are required to take compulsory registration. While we find that printers and photocopiers find place in the Schedule, the MFD does not find place in the said order. In this connection, the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the order cited by the appellant has examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the contrary is established on such examination by the approved Chartered Engineer, such consignments shall be dealt with separately by the Customs authorities. 6.5 The only point left to be considered is imposition of penalty under Section 114AA on proprietors of the importers in certain cases. In this regard, we note that the proprietor is not different from the proprietary firm. Since the importing firm already stands penalized under Section 112(a) of the Act, we find no requirement to impose separate penalty on the proprietor under Section 114AA. Hence, penalties imposed on the proprietors are set aside. 7. The learned advocate has also requested for waiver of demurrage on the imported goods. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities under Customs Act and the CESTAT is to adjudicate disputes arising in course of trade and commerce, levy and collection of import duty etc. The petitioner, if is satisfied with the order passed by the respondent, is bound to obey the order made by respondent and cannot insist upon clearance of goods contrary to the orders passed by the authorities under Customs Act. The petitioner, since was aggrieved by the order of respondent, filed statutory appeal and the appeal was disposed of in terms of Ext.P11 final order. The final order now is binding on both the parties and the respondent has no option except by showing due deference to the adjudication, clears the goods reported through B/E No.6846514. The default in releasing the goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other words, the respondent does not dispute the legal obligation to comply with Ext.P11 final order but states that the time to insist upon complying with Tribunal's order arises after the period of limitation for filing appeal is completed. From the limited objection taken by the respondents this Court is constrained to observe that the respondent is not justified in waiting till the last date of limitation for filing appeal and then proceed to decide whether Ext.P11 could be implemented or not. The respondent is dealing with goods imported by petitioner. For the petitioner and its customers the goods imported is a simple commercial transaction. The law enables petitioner to lawfully sell the imported goods only upon obtaining customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
