TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. [Order per : K.A. Puj, J. (Oral)]. These three miscellaneous civil applications are filed by the applicants/original respondents in Special Civil Applications praying for review and recalling the order dated 16-9-2010 passed by this Court in the main petition. 2. Heard Mr. R.J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the opponent/original petitioner. 3. The main grievance ventilated by Mr. Oza on behalf of the applicants/original respondents is that the order passed by this Court on 16-9-2010 does not contain any reason. Though the Court has observed in its order that after considering the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made before the Court, the interim order was passed directing the respondent authorities to release the goods forthwith, neither submissions made nor pleadings contained in the affidavits filed on behalf of the applicants/original respondents were taken into consideration. He has, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Court is a non-speaking order and it gives rise to the present review applications. In support of his submissions, Mr. Oza ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that in absence of any specific finding on the various issues raised by the present applicants/original respondents, the prima facie satisfaction recorded by this Court for the purpose of releasing the goods in question is not just and proper, especially in view of the fact that a preliminary objection was raised by the applicants/original respondents against the maintainability of the petitions as the proceedings are at the show cause notice stage. He has, therefore, submitted that the interim order passed by this Court is required to be modified so as to make the present opponent/original petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee or cash security in the form of fixed deposit or such other collateral security to be kept valid and subsisting at all times with condition for automatic renewal thereof, till the final disposal of the adjudication proceedings and recovery of dues, if any. 6. Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the opponent/original petitioner in all the three review applications, submitted that the present applications moved by the applicants/original respondents are beyond the scope of review. He has further submitted that there is no apparent error i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), wherein this Court has taken the view that there is nothing in the show cause notice disclosing the grounds on which they went back on their original decision based on the report of the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Department. It is a case of arbitrary exercise of authority by the respondents without regard to the relevant provisions of law and in utter disregard of the opinion of the Chemical Examiner. 8. Mr. Dave, therefore, submitted that the matter was heard at length and initially, the Court was inclined to finally dispose of the matter, however, with regard to the amendment, the reply was to be submitted and hence, the Court has passed interim order after considering the pleadings of the parties and the documents available on record. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the peculiar facts of the case, the Court has recorded prima facie opinion instead of giving the reasons in the order and hence, the said order is not required to be reviewed or recalled at the behest of the applicants/original respondents. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the submissions made in light of the authorities cited before the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of this Court does not contain reasons. 11. The petitioners originally filed writ petitions on 8-12-2009 before this Court for direction to assess the Bills of Entry because custom authorities were not taking any action at all on the Bills of Entry for clearance of goods for home consumption. A surveyor and valuer appointed by the custom authorities rendered his report on 21-12-2009 about the condition as well as value of the goods imported by the petitioners after physically verifying and checking the goods at the port in presence of custom officers as well as the petitioners. The Court, therefore, directed on 24-12-2009 to assess the bills of entry after completing the formalities and investigation, preferably within a period of three weeks. The authorities have, thereafter, filed two Miscellaneous Civil Applications seeking extension of time. Instead of assessing the goods, seizure order was passed which was challenged in the present petitions. No sooner the notice was issued by this Court on 24-4-2010 and served on 26-4-2010, show cause notice was issued on 3-5-2010 and served on the petitioners on 4-5-2010. The petitioners, thereafter, sought amendment challenging the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
