Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (6) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... delay and also for a direction on the respondents to forthwith release the goods being 16,000 pieces of `F.K. Brand' Pillow Block Bearings against provisional assessment and furnishing of P.D. Bond without any further delay. The facts leading to the filing of this application are stated as follows : On or about 7th May, 1994 the petitioner company entered into a contract with M/s. CAP Enterprise Company of Hongkong for the supply of 1,21,000 pieces of `F.K. Brand' Pillow Block Bearings (hereinafter referred to as the said goods). On or about 2-8-1994 the said goods arrived at the Port of Calcutta, whereupon the petitioner duly filed Bill of Entry for home consumption with all related papers, import documents including sales contract, I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the value of the goods shall not be determined on the basis of the value as indicated in Column (3) of Paragraph 7(f) of the show cause notice and why the subject goods shall not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penal action shall not be taken against the petitioners under Section 112(a) of the said Act. The writ petitioner has admittedly replied to the said show cause notice. A personal hearing was also given to the writ petitioner. 4.By an order dated 24-12-1994 the Commissioner of Customs Calcutta, passed an order by rejecting the submissions of the writ petitioner and confirmed that the said goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and the writ petitioner was liable to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the order of remand. Mr. Sarkar appearing on behalf of the Customs Authority also admitted before me that no final order has yet been passed by the Adjudicating Authority in spite of the order of the Tribunal in which a specific direction was given to the Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the order of the Tribunal. 7.However, Mr. Sarkar submits before me that if three weeks time is granted to the Authority, final order can be passed within such time. Mr. Sen, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, did not raise any objection as to the grant of extension of time to pass a final order in compliance with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, three week's time is g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the order of CEGAT to the Adjudicating Authority in the year 1994 to dispose of the matter within 3 months from the date of receiving a copy of its order was not followed and after the order of remand no final order has yet been passed by the Adjudicating Authority, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case as stated above the interim direction for release of the goods in the manner passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5-2-1992 in the case of Sheheol Booring v. Union of India Others should also be made in this case. Accordingly, a direction is given to the Commissioner of Customs to release the goods in the following manner : "The goods in question shall be released upon payment by the petitioner of the customs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as made on the other day that he will rely on the records only and shall not file any affidavit in opposition to this writ application. 10.Since no affidavit in opposition to this writ application has been filed, allegations made in the writ petition, however, shall not be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. 11.Mr. Sen has drawn by attention to another aspect of this matter. Relying on 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., he submits that some strictures to the Adjudicating Authority should be given as the Adjudicating Authority has not yet complied with the direction made by the CEGAT which is binding on the Adjudicating Authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates