TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... problem. Proper officer bound to consider case independent to guidelines. Statutory discretion can not be fettered by self created rules or policy. Order refusing to grant amendment set aside and matter restored to deputy commissioner in appropriate proceedings. - 1066 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2010 - V.C. Daga and K.K. Tated, JJ. Shri Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mohan Jayakar i/b. Khaitan Jayakar, for the Petitioner. S/Shri A.S. Rao and S.N. Kantawala with Brijesh Pathak, for the Respondent. [Judgment per: Vijay Daga, J.] - Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waived service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the entire consignment of 3,875 metric tons. The petitioner is informed that on the instructions of PKT, in the column "Consignee" in the Bills of Landing, it was to be indicated "to order". 5. Thereafter, the said vessels sailed from Port Parangua in Brazil and arrived in the Nhava Sheva Port, India on the dates as indicated in para-4(c) of the petition. The names of notified parties given in para-4(d) of the petition are the respondent Nos. 5 to 14 in the present petition. According to the petitioner, for five bills of lading he has filed bills of entry and accordingly, cleared the imported goods after obtaining the necessary clearance from the Custom Authorities. With regard to the remaining 20 bills of lading as set out in para- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , were signed on 7th January, 2010. 9. The petitioner applied to the Customs authorities to seek amendment to the 1GM so as to substitute his name as consignee in place of notified parties. However, it appears that in respect of remaining bills the amendment to the 1GM was not permitted by the Customs authorities in view of the public notice dated 14th January. 2010, That is how the petitioner is before this Court to challenge the said public notice. On this factual matrix, this petition was heard. Contentions: 10. Mr. Ravi Kadam, learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner urged that under sub-section (3) of section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962, if the proper officer is satisfied that the import manifest or import repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect or incomplete, and that there was no fraudulent intention, he may permit it to be amended or supplemented. 14. Sub-section (3) of Section 30 lays down that lithe proper officer is satisfied that the import manifest or import report is in any way incorrect or in complete, and that there is no fraudulent intention, he may permit it to be amended or supplemented. As against this, if one turns to the public notice dated 14th January 2010, the policy decision taken by the Revenue is only by way of guide-line and the public notice issued by the authorities covers only the part of the problem faced by the department. The guide-line mentioned therein is not exhaustive and does not cover all contingencies falling under Sub-Section (3) of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rameters. The Decision: 16. On the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned order dated 25th January,2010 refusing to grant amendment to the IGM is set aside. Matter is restored back to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Import Noting) with direction to consider the same afresh and decide it by a reasoned order following principles of natural justice with expeditious despatch, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Question of validity of public notice dated 14th January, 2010 is left open for being considered in the appropriate proceeding at appropriate stage, if occasion arises. All rival contentions on merits are kept open. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
