9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice within the time stipulated by law meaning that the goods were to be unconditionally released. There was no question of the revenue, therefore, from being precluded from using its power to bring to assessment the entire quantum, and classifying them for the purposes of customs duty or seeking to recover the correct amount due. The impugned order of 16-6-2016 is hereby set aside. It is open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law and assess the entire quantum, both in respect of their correct classification as well as pass any orders of penalty and/or confiscation - Petition disposed off. - W.P. (C) No. 6061 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2016 - S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma, JJ. Mrs. Anjali J. Manish and Shri Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to file appropriate affidavit explaining why the letter of 16-6-2016 was issued. The Court also directed immediate compliance with the previous directions with respect to the release of goods. The order dated 21-7-2016 reads as follows : 1. Notice. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This is the second round of litigation by the Petitioner who had earlier filed W.P. (C) No. 4707 of 2016 seeking unconditional release of the goods imported against the Bill of Entry No. 8450156 dated 27th February, 2015 which were seized under panchnama dated 2nd March, 2015. 3. In a detailed order dated 2nd June 2016, the Court after noting that no show cause notice ( SCN ) had been issued wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eev Narula is unable to explain to the Court why despite a specific direction for unconditional release, while reserving the statutory right of the Department to proceed under Section 124 of the CA, the said order was not complied with. He seeks some more time to obtain instructions. Meanwhile the Petitioner has filed a contempt petition as well. 7. The Court is constrained to observe that there was no occasion for multiplicity of proceedings arising from the order dated 2nd June, 2016 passed by this Court. If the Customs Department was aggrieved by any portion of that order, it could have proceeded to seek whatever remedies were available to it in accordance with law. There being no challenge to that order, the Department was bound to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st, 2016. 11. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master. 3. The Deputy Commissioner concerned has filed an affidavit which seeks to explain the reasons for the letter/order of 16-6-2016. It is primarily contended that the customs authorities acted under a bona fide belief that they were precluded by the judgment from proceeding to issue show cause notice under Section 124(3) in respect of the entire amount but could have proceeded against the primary quantum of goods declared and they were, therefore, of the belief that penalty proceedings could not be initiated in respect of entire quantum but only a portion thereof. The other affidavit filed by the Customs Officer informs the Court that the goods have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
