TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) dated 4th September, 1996 relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills, 2001 (129) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.) = AIR 2001 SC 1806. The Facts : 2.The facts, in nut shell, leading to the present petition, are as under : The petitioner filed Bill of Entry dated 20th May, 1994 seeking clearance of a consignment of 127.90 MT of scrap used rubber tyres for retreading valued at Rs. 4,07,599/- claiming assessment under Chapter Heading 4012.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3.The Customs Department loaded the value of the goods from Rs. 4,03,524/- to Rs. 87,51,269/- and refused to release the said goods and issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refer an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 26th June, 1998 before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai who once again directed Respondent No. 3 to decide the matter afresh on its own merits. 8.The Respondent No. 3 despite the order dated 26th June, 1998, once again demanded CVD approximately, in the sum of Rs. 1.70 crore vide his order dated 3rd January, 2000. With the result, the petitioner was again forced to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai against the said order dated 3rd January, 2000. Once again, by order dated 25th September, 2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, the matter came to be remanded to Respondent No. 3 for de novo adjudication. 9The Respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.Mr. Kantawala, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner emphasised that although the CEGAT in its final order reduced fine and penalty and the petitioner was ready and willing to discharge its obligation as per the said order, the Respondent No. 3 illegally raised issue of CVD requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 1.70 crore (approximately) and, ultimately, after three rounds of repeated appeals, by order dated 18th October, 2001; he himself dropped the demand of CVD realising his mistake. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is a clear case of mala fide adjudication of the dispute by the Revenue Authorities constituting sheer abuse of process of law, as such the petitioner should not be made to pay the wareh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d responsible. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.L. Jain Woolen Mills (supra) in support of his submissions. 12.Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the revenue refuted all the submissions made by the petitioner and relying upon Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("Act" for short) contended that none of the authorities have recorded any finding to the effect that any action of any of the authorities was mala fide or constituted abuse of process of law. All the orders were passed by the authorities in the course of adjudication proceeding in discharge of their duty under the Act. All orders were bona fide orders passed by the authorities below, as such the orders even though set aside in the appeal were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehousing corporation. He submitted that in the case of C.L. Jain Woolen Mills (supra), the earlier order passed by the Delhi High Court in the writ petition filed by the importer of the goods had become final and conclusive between the parties. Consequently, the Apex Court in the second round of litigation on the touchstone of doctrine of res judicata held that the order of the Delhi High Court, which was adverse to the Revenue having reached finality with dismissal of the special leave petition filed by the Union of India, the liability of the importer to pay the demurrage charges had ceased. Consequently, the Apex Court was required to saddle the liability of warehousing charges on the Customs Department. The learned Counsel for the reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mala fide intention had declined to clear the goods. In the order dated 4th September, 1996, the CEGAT had reduced the fine and penalty imposed upon the petitioner. There was no issue of CVD before CEGAT. Therefore, if the Customs Authorities had agreed to clear the goods on payment of penalty and redemption fine as determined by the CEGAT and on payment of CVD, it cannot be said that the Customs Authorities were declining to clear the goods in spite of the order of CEGAT. It may be that, ultimately, the Customs Authorities accepted the contentions and held that the CVD is not leviable on the goods imported by the petitioner. That itself cannot be a ground for claiming warehousing charges from the Customs Department. 16.The Apex Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
