9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Tariff Act of 1975 has failed to act in accordance with the provisions of Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 read with the Customs Tariff Act of 1975. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 committed an error by fixing the amount arbitrarily at a highly inflated figure of Rs. 81,710.94 even after realisation of proper Import Duty of Rs. 40,855.47P. for the imported consignment. 2. The petitioner alleges that against the order of adjudication passed by the respondent No. 2 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1 Collector of Customs (Appeals) and the respondent No. 1 who heard the petitioner's appeal on 16th of November, 1987 dismissed the same holding, inter alia, that two of the documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1965. 7. It is asserted that the request of the petitioner for extension of time for submission of such documents was duly granted and the petitioner was granted very opportunity for production of documents and submission of information and after giving a due notice the terms of the Bond were enforced upon the petitioner loading confirmation of demand for the bond amount of Rs. 80,901.92P. but since the petitioner has failed to comply with the same and relevent documents were not filed and the informations were not supplied, the impugned order was made in accordance with law. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the Custom Authorities at length and after going through the impugned order passed by the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay can be condoned if sufficient explanation is given and the Authority may exercise the discretion in accordance with law. For the fitness of things and for the ends of justice the present writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and directing the Respondent No. 2 to admit the documents and to consider the case afresh on merit by giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the case on merit nor this Judgment will influence either side so far as the merit of the case is concerned. 11. It is made clear that the respondent No. 2 will be entitled to ask for the production of the documents already filed before the Appellate Authority within a time as he wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
