Disposed

Praful M.Vora v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Mar 2006WP/1589/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging customs clearance delays, the Court directed the Respondent to complete adjudication under Section 17 of the Customs Act within three months and kept the petitioner's bank guarantee and bond alive for one month thereafter.

What did the court decide?

The respondent shall complete adjudication under Section 17 of the Customs Act within three months; bank guarantee and bond kept alive for one month thereafter; no costs.

Praful M.Vora Vs Union of India and Ors. — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.1589 OF 1996

¶4

 Mr.Praful Mansukhlal Vora .. Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶7

 Mr.H.R. Shetty for the petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.P.S. Jetly with Mrs.S.V. Bharucha for the
 respondents.

¶9

 CORAM : R.M. LODHA &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

 DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2006.
P.C. :

¶11

 Heard.

¶12

 2. By this writ petition, inter alia, the

¶13

 petitioner sought directions to the respondent Nos.2
 to 4 to allow the clearance of the petitioners goods
 pertaining to the bills of entry No.972/212 dated
 19th April, 1996 under import licences No.167872
 dated 7th July, 1995.

¶14

 3. By the order dated 20th August, 1996, while

¶15

 issuing rule, the learned Single Judge directed the
 respondents to permit clearance of the goods subject
 to petitioners furnishing bank guarantee to the
 extent of 50% of the customs duty and bond to the

¶16

¶17

 extent of 50% for the rest. We are informed that as
 per the order dated 20th August, 1996, the
 petitioners furnished bank guarantee to the extent of
 50% of the duty and the said bank guarantee is alive
 upto June, 2006. The petitioners also furnished bond
 to the extent of 50% of the duty.

¶18

 4. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the
 respondents, it transpires that no specific stand has
 been set up that the petitioner was not bona fide
 transferee of the advance licence/s. It is also
 stated in the reply-affidavit that the investigation
 was going on and incomplete. We wanted to know from
 the learned counsel for the revenue about the result
 of the investigation. The learned counsel for the
 revenue is unable to tell us anything about the
 result of the investigation.

¶19

 5. Taking all relevant facts and aspects into
 consideration, we are of the view that it would be in
 the fitness of things if the Assessing Officer
 completes the adjudication proceedings under Section
 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 expeditiously and the
 petitioner co-operates with the Assessing Officer in
 that regard. The goods have already been released
 and by virtue of the interim order of this Court the
 bank guarantee for 50% of the duty and the bond of

¶20

¶21

 remaining 50% are alive.

¶22

 6. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition
 by following order :

¶23

 i) The respondent No.4 shall complete
 the adjudication proceedings under Section 17
 of the Customs Act, 1962 as expeditiously as
 possible and in no case later than three
 months.

¶24

 ii) Until the adjudication proceedings
 are over and for a period of one month
 therefrom, the bank guarantee and bond
 furnished by the petitioner shall be kept

¶25

 alive.

¶26

 7. No costs.

¶27

 (R.M. LODHA, J.)

¶28

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Praful M.Vora v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praful M.Vora v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

m/s shubhada polymers products p.ltd Vs the union of india and Anr.

M/S. Hickoson and Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

M/S.Sudhir Diamonds Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kirtikumar Pananlal Shah Vs 1. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Kirtikumar Pananlal Shah Vs 1. Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S.Uma Shankar Khandel- Wal and Co. Vs Union of India and Ors.