Writ Petition No. 3280 of 2016. Case: D.K. Collection Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 3280 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Sujay Kantawala with Brijesh Pathak and Yogesh Rohira, Advs. and For Respondents: Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, Adv. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. |
| Issue | Customs Act, 1962 - Section 110A; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | 2016 (336) ELT 479 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | April 04, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
After having heard Mr. Kantawala, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perusing with their assistance the petition, affidavit in reply, the civil application as also the affidavitinreply thereto, we are of the opinion that with an appropriate clarification and by keeping all issues open, the Writ Petition can be disposed of.
-
The essential relief prayed is to release certain consignments which are now seized. A provisional order has also been passed on 15th March, 2016 pursuant to this Court''s directions.
-
The grievance is that this provisional order finally adjudicates the controversy and now there is nothing for determination by the Competent Authority. Even when the show cause notices are not issued, such conditions are imposed as would enable illegal recoveries. Meaning thereby, if export duty is not chargeable in law, even that is sought to be recovered in an indirect and oblique manner. Our attention is invited to the recommendations of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to the Appellate Authority and the conditional provisional assessment order. It is submitted by Mr. Kantawala that this imposition is unreasonable and excessive so also arbitrary. The conditions imposed for payment of duties and as quantified by the DRIthe Investigating Agency, are ex facie illegal.
-
On the other hand, Mr. Jetly seeks to justify this entire exercise by pointing out that a fraud on the public is perpetrated and is continued in the sense that some persons and dealing in carpets tried to take them out of India in the garb of confirmed export orders. However, the pattern now revealed is that there are certain persons operating from Dubai who through their frontmen allow import of these goods or similar goods from Dubai. They are received in India and against the Drawback scheme. Thereafter, certain confirmed export orders are obtained and there is evasion of duty. The statements have been recorded and this would reveal as to how in the garb of certain shipping bills and related export invoices but without supporting material such as lorry receipts/consignment notes relating to transport of goods from place of purchase to board/container freight stations are absent. Despite summons being issued, they have not been produced. Thus, some of the documents...
To continue reading
Request your trial