TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, the respondents clearly misdirected itself in refusing to pass an order of release on the ground that the adjudicating authority had already passed an order against the petitioner by relying upon the order dated 31.12.2021 referred to in paragraph-3 of the impugned order, without appreciating that the same does not pertain to the adjudication proceedings in relation to the petitioner, since the same had already culminated in the order at Annexure- P dated 10.03.2021 itself, much prior to 31.12.2021. It is also relevant to state that though Section 110A of the Act refers to the proceedings before the adjudicating officer, in the light of the undisputed fact that the appeal had been preferred by the petitioner and a further app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll of entry no.9288853 dtd 23.10.2020 consisting of DEFATTED COCONUT classified as Tariff Item/CTH 23065020 forthwith and to issue demurrage waiver certificate to the petitioner; ( produced at Annexure-V); (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the Respondent No.3 to pay costs, and damages to the Petitioner to make good the loss incurred by the petitioners. (iii) Issue any other writ or order or direction and grant such other relief or relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondents - revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that as noticed by this Court in W.P.No.6016/2022, the respondents have preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and since the same is pending, the question of adjudicating authority directing provisional release of the goods does not arise. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, in W.P.No.6016/2022 dated 05.04.2022, this Court held as under:- The petitioner, who has the benefit of an order in Appeal in A.No.99/2021-Cus (B-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is entitled to the release of the imported goods. But, when it is pointed out that if the appeal is presently instituted and pending, the learned Senior Counsel submits that because it is so stated only now and the petitioner is yet to be served with notice of such appeals, the petitioner may be reserved liberty to approach the adjudicating authority for release of the imported goods with appropriate directions for expedited decision. Since Sri Jeevan J Neeralgi is categorical in his submissions that if an application was filed during the pendency of the original proceedings under Section110A of the Customs Act, 1962, the adjudicating authority could have considered provisional release of the goods subject to the terms as regards sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision on such application, since the subject goods are perishable in nature. In the light of the specific direction issued by this Court and liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an application under Section 110A of the Customs Act, the respondents clearly misdirected itself in refusing to pass an order of release on the ground that the adjudicating authority had already passed an order against the petitioner by relying upon the order dated 31.12.2021 referred to in paragraph-3 of the impugned order, without appreciating that the same does not pertain to the adjudication proceedings in relation to the petitioner, since the same had already culminated in the order at Annexure- P dated 10.03.2021 itself, much prior to 31.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
