9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Act) was issued to the petitioner's representative on 12-10-1987. The petitioner was granted a personal hearing by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. According to the petitioner no indication was given regarding the charges against the petitioner even in the course of the adjudication proceedings. An order was passed by the Collector of Customs by which the value of the goods was enhanced, the goods were directed to be confiscated, release of the goods was allowed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,15,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was imposed. The order was dated 12-10-87 but was received by the petitioner on 12-4-1988. 2. The petitioner paid the amount and preferred an appeal from the order dated 12-10-1987. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner from time to time for refund of the said amount of Rs. 4,96,970/-. No such refund was made. 5. In the circumstances the writ petitioner filed this application under Article 226 inter alia for a direction on the respondents to assess the Bills of Entry in terms of the order of the Collector of Customs (Judicial) and to release the amount of 4,96,970/- forthwith together with interest at 18% per annum. 6. The application was moved upon the notice to the respondents. The respondents were present through counsel. Counsel for the respondents conceded that the payment would be made as prayed for but as there was a question of calculation involved a little time should be granted for the purpose. Accordingly the following order was passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n up for hearing on 26th April, 1991. The respondents then submitted through their Counsel that they were unable to make any payment as directed, because of a direction of the Board dated 18-11-1989 as well as a telex message from the Under Secretary (J) Department of Finance and Revenue, New Delhi, which reads as follows: "It is obvious that there is no direct judgment of the Supreme Court on the question of unjust enrichment in the case of Excise or Customs Duty (.) At the same time, Courts have relied upon the doctrine of unjust enrichment in refusing relief of refund to parties who have sought assistance of Courts. Mostly by way of writ petitions and in some cases by way of Civil suit (.) There is no justification in my opinion as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril, 1991. 13. In any event when an order of the High Court directs a person to do something it is incumbent on that person to comply with that order. The excuse that the respondents were bound by the higher authorities is unacceptable. The order of the Court as long as stands is paramount. 14. The Officers in question are the following: Respondent No. 1 - Mr. P.N. Malhotra, Collector of Customs, Calcutta, Customs House, 15/1, Strand Road, Calcutta-700 001. Respondent No. 2 - Mr. R. Ramchandran, Collector of Customs (Judicial), Calcutta, Customs House, 16/1, Strand Road, Calcutta-1. Respondent No. 3 - Mr. S.K. Pal; Assistant Collector of Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
