Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Shivalik Impex, M/s Popular Mart, M/s Raghav Impex And M/s White Leaf International Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Import) , ICD, TKD

2016 (2) TMI 576 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Undervaluation of import - Demand of differential duty - Appellate remedy - Principle of natural justice - petitioners stated that before they could file their replies, they should be furnished the non-relied upon documents - It is stated that the Adjudicating Authority gets only the relied upon documents from the Investigative Agency i.e. DRI and the Adjudicating Authority is not possessed of the documents demanded by the petitioners. - Held that:- The counsel for the petitioners states that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ORDER CM No.27589/2015 in W.P.(C) No.10742/2105, CM No.27666/2015 in W.P.(C) No.10751/2105, CM No.27714/2015 in W.P.(C) No.10783/2105 & CM No.27797/2015 in W.P.(C) No.10811/2105 (all for exemption): 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) No.10742/2015 & CM No.27588/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) No.10751/2015 & CM No.27665/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) No.10783/2015 & CM No.27713/2015 (for stay) & W.P.(C) No.10811/2015 & CM No.27796/201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hereafter, the petitioners received notice of hearing from the Adjudicating Authority namely the respondent, Commissioner of Customs (Import), only in or about December, 2014. In response thereto, the petitioners stated that before they could file their replies, they should be furnished the non-relied upon documents. It is the case of the petitioners that without being furnished copies of the non-relied upon documents, the petitioners are handicapped in the matter of contesting the proceedings b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Authority has vide order dated 29th October, 2015 observed that the adjudication proceedings cannot be stalled for non-supply of non-relied upon documents by the DRI and called upon the petitioners to file their replies by 16th November, 2015. The counsel for the petitioners states that replies have not been filed as yet and the petitioners have applied for extension of time on the ground of these petitions. 6. These petitions have been filed impleading only the Adjudicating Authority i.e. Comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n contravention thereof, the remedy provided against the said final order can be availed of. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the High Courts in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere at the interim stage of the proceedings and which invariably results in delaying the disposal of the proceedings and multiplying the litigation. Reference in this regard can be made to Carl Still G.M.B.H. Vs. The State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 1615 where it was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er dated 29th October, 2015 of the respondent, Commissioner of Customs (Import) refusing the request of the petitioners and directing the petitioners to file replies is at best an interim order. It is again a settled principle that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 will not interfere with interim orders and let the Tribunals over which it exercises supervisory jurisdiction to conclude the proceedings before them, reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of the Supre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

conomist Ltd. Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/0090/2015. 8. The counsel for the petitioners states that if the final order is passed without supplying the documents and the same is against the petitioners, the petitioners to prefer an appeal thereagainst would have to deposit 7.5% of the adjudicated duty and which would prejudice the petitioners. 9. That, in law is no ground to entertain petitions at the interim stage of the proceedings. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India canno .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version