TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs and proceeded to auction the goods in violation of the statutory procedure, moreso, when this Court was seized of the matter. The Auction Notice was issued on 02.05.2018, whereas neither in the letter dated 22.05.2018 (Noticed in P-18) nor in the reply to the present writ petition by both the respondents, the said fact was disclosed. Both, the Department of Customs and the Warehouse Keeper (respondent No. 3) have deliberately misleaded this Court, amounting to interference in administration of justice. Notice of the application bearing CM No. 16007-CWP of 2018 is issued to the respondents for the next date of hearing - Adjourned to 21.11.2019. - C.W.P. No. 13194 of 2018 (O&M) - - - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E The petitioner-a proprietorship concern, on 19.01.2013 imported two (02) consignments of goods described in the Bill of Entry as Pressed Distillate Oil at the Ludhiana Dry Port. The respondent-Commissioner of Customs, doubting the description and value of goods, detained and seized both the consignments. The stand of the respondent was that the imported oil had characteristics of Base Oil and, therefore, has to be accepted as a Base Oil of higher value. After a protracted litigation of five (05) years, including the provisional release of seized goods subject to very stringent conditions on the much higher assumed value of the goods, the learned CESTAT (in short the 'Tribunal') finally vide order dated 18.04.2017 settled all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy of the present writ petition, it has come on record that the Warehouse Keeper has auctioned the goods in question in May' 2018 and handed over the delivery of goods to Auction Purchaser. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Warehouse Keeper in violation of the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962, neither sought prior permission of the Commissioner of Customs nor offered goods to the owner/petitioner before proceeding to illegally auction them. He further urged that inspite of the prayer for release of seized goods without depositing of the charges in view of Detention Memo, respondent No. 3 continued to illegally demand charges of ₹ 4.45 crores, whereas the goods are stated to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II, reported as 2019 (366) E.L.T. 820 (Mad.); and (5) Isha Exim Versus A.D.G., Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, reported as 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 273 (Mad.), wherein it has been settled that on issue of the Detention Memo by the Customs Department, no storage charges/rentals can be called for. The Auction Notice was issued on 02.05.2018, whereas neither in the letter dated 22.05.2018 (Noticed in P-18) nor in the reply to the present writ petition by both the respondents, the said fact was disclosed. Both, the Department of Customs and the Warehouse Keeper (respondent No. 3) have deliberately misleaded this Court, amounting to interference in administration of justice. The Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
