9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.This petition is directed against the action of the respondent No. 2 ordering cancellation of the detention certificate pursuant to the endorsement on the bill of entry on March 5, 1994. 3.It is not in dispute that pursuant to the public notice dated July 29, 1985 detention certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners by the Customs Authorities for the period August 30, 1993 to Februa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional Collector of Customs." This action of the Customs is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Submissions : 6.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that pursuant to the public notice the detention certificate was rightly issued. In his submission public notice nowhere required signature either of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges, it was not open for the Customs to cancel the said detention certificate. Per Contra : 7.Mr. R.V. Desai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue tried to support the impugned action. He could not satisfy us as to why the petitioners were not entitled to have an opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of the detention certificate. He could not offer any justif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ach of principles of natural justice. 9.Apart from this, the detention certificate was acted upon by the Bombay Port Trust and 80% remission was granted by them in favour of the petitioners as such it could not have been cancelled. At the most defect thereof could have been removed. So far as merits are concerned, it is not in dispute that the bill of entry was submitted by the petitioners and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
