9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 whereby two writ petitions i.e. W.P. (L) No. 3503 of 2020 (M/s. Harihar Collections v/s. Union of India) and W.P. (L) No. 3502 of 2020 (M/s. Raj Grow Impex LLP v/s. Union of India) were allowed to the extent mentioned in the said judgment and order. 3. Applicant is the original petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.3502 of 2020. 4. The said writ petition was filed seeking direction in prayer (b) to the respondents to clear the goods imported by the petitioner vide Bills of Entry Nos.5520732, 5520871 and 5520536 all dated 1st November, 2019. 5. Additionally, another prayer (c) was also made for direction to the respondents to release the imported goods vide seven Bills of Entry bearing Nos. 5520537, 5520538, 5520539, 5520540, 552054 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-in-original suffers from illegality or impropriety. Even on that aspect also, we refrain from expressing our final views since it is stated that application has been filed pursuant to the order dated 01.10.2020 which shall now be treated as an appeal, but the manner in which the order has been passed is definitely questionable and the contents of the order dated 01.10.2020 particularly the ground given as examined prima facie do not make out a case that the order-in-original suffers from such illegality and impropriety that suo motu revisional power under section 129D(2) should be exercised. Prima facie, on examination of the grounds as above, we cannot say that the adjudicating authority acted beyond the bounds of his authority. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particularly respondent Nos.4 to 7 to forthwith release the goods of the petitioner covered by bills of entry bearing Nos. 5720040, 5720192, 572069, 5722458, 5722730, 5719772, 5722243 and 5722456 all dated 18.11.2019. Similar direction also follows in Writ Petition No.3502 of 2020 in respect of bills of entry bearing Nos.5520732, 5520871 and 5520536 all dated 01.11.2019. 39 Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. We thought of imposing cost in this case but we have refrained ourselves from doing so." 7.2 From the above, we find that prayer clause (c) in W. P. (L) No.3502 of 2020 somehow got omitted from consideration and grant of consequential relief. 8. On 24th November, 2020, Mr. Venkatraman, learned Additional Solicitor Gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke it clear that the scope of the present Interim Application is very limited i.e. whether while allowing the two Writ Petitions, certain portion of the prayer made by the Applicant as the Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.3502 of 2020 got omitted and which is required to be added, nonetheless, we are of the view that since learned Addl. Solicitor General has submitted that Respondents are filing SLP within a day or two, hearing of this Interim Application may be deferred for a week. 8. Stand over to 3rd December, 2020 as was directed earlier." 8.1 The matter was thereafter called on 3rd December, 2020 on which date the following order was passed:- " Heard Dr. Sujay Kantawala, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
