9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h March 1983 the foreign supplier despatched 1004.710 M.T. of the materials per S.S. Jaltarang. This entire transaction was entered into on the basis of the existing duty. The dispute is regarding the auxiliary duty. Admittedly, at the time of shipment of the materials on 11th March, 1983 it was 20% ad valorem. By notification, dated 18th March, 1983 it was increased from 20% to 25%. Admittedly, the bill of entry was submitted and the ship arrived subsequently. On the 20th May, 1983, that is before the arrival of the ship the petitioners filed this writ petition praying for:- A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of "(a) Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the clearance of the goods imported by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Duty in the assessable value by adding thereof the landing charges, freight, packing and insurance charge in the assessable value of the said goods mentioned in Annexure "A" hereto and all purported proceedings relating thereto so that the same may be set aside and/or quashed and conscionable justice might be rendered; A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature (f) prohibition commanding the respondents to forbear from levying and/or demanding basic duty of 15% ad valorem auxiliary duty in excess of 20% and countervailing duty at the rates exceeding Rs. 850/- per metric ton in respect of the goods covered by the said contract and/or other documents included in Annexure "A" hereto and or from in any way applying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder is being passed ex parte as I am satisfied that otherwise the petitioner would suffer extreme hardship. Let the grounds and a gist of my order made today be served on all the respondents by the 1st June, 1983. Let this matter appear as an application in Chambers on the 2nd June, 1983." 4. Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal was preferred by the Collector of Customs. 5. By an order, dated 21st June 1983 the interim order was modified by the Appeal Court and the writ petitioners were directed to put in 25% of the disputed amount in cash and 75% in bank guarantee. This matter came up before us on the 17th September, 1987 and in order to expedite the matter we directed the hearing of the writ petition itself and gave direction f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this writ petition. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The interim order passed is set aside. All interim orders are vacated the writ petition is dismissed and Rule discharged. 9. So far as the bank guarantee furnished is concerned, the Customs Authority shall be entitled to encash the same immediately pursuant to the direction of the Trial Court, dated 20th May, 1983 as modified by the Appeal Court's order, dated 21st June 1983, so far as the assessment proceedings are concerned, a further opportunity will be given to file reply within a fortnight from the date of such notice and the assessment proceedings are to be completed within two months from this date. 10. Before we conclude we may point out one thing. This appeal was preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeding any further with the show cause notice issued by the Asst. Collector of Customs for Appraisement Group III, dated 25th June, 1983. A xerox copy of the Minute of the said order is annexed herewith and marked "D". "7. After being served with a copy of the said writ petition and the said ex-parte interim order, the respondents appeared and opposed the said application and for extention of interim order. By an order, dated 27th February, 1984, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Roy was pleased to modify the interim order, dated 4th October, 1983 to the extent that the petitioner will show cause pursuant to the show cause notice to the authorities concerned but the authorities concerned shall not proceed further pursuant to the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons incharge of conduct of litigation in this case on behalf of the Customs Authority are guilty of gross delay and negligence. We strongly condemn the same particularly having regard to the fact that it has become the habit in some quarters to blame the Court for delay in proceedings where as we have found in most of the cases that the persons who are incharge of the conduct of litigation on behalf of the Revenue Authorities are to be blamed. We condemn this attitude. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Revenue (Customs), New Delhi, the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, and the Attorney General of India, by the Registrar, Original Side of this Court. [Satya Brata Mitra, J.]. - I agree. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
