Allowed

Computer Karishma Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Collector of Customs and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jun 2006WP/1653/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief to clear imported goods under a provisional duty rate. The Court granted interim clearance and directed the revenue authority to finalize the adjudication of duty liability within four months, directing the maintenance of a bank guarantee until completion.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; directed Revenue to finalize adjudication of duty liability within four months; directed petitioner to keep bank guarantee alive until completion.

Computer Karishma Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Collector… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1653 OF 1990.

¶4

Computer Karishma Pvt. Ltd.

¶5

... Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Principal Collector of Customs, Bombay and others.

¶8

... Respondents.

¶9

Prakash Shah i/b. M/s.PDS Legal for the petitioner.

¶10

P.S.Jetly for the respondents.

¶11

CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 16th June 2006.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

During the course of hearing, it has come

¶15

to	our	notice that		while transcribi	ng th	e o	rder	dated
14th		June, 2006,	a	typographical	error	has	crept	in.
The	am	ount of cost		awarded was	in	the	sum	of

¶16

Rs.5,000/-. However, in the order, in para-2; it

¶17

was typed as Rs.500/-.

¶18

. Accordingly, figure of Rs.5,000/- be

¶19

substituted in the place of Rs.500/-. Order

¶20

accordingly.

¶21

At this stage, the learned counsel

¶22

appearing for the petitioner submits that amount of

¶23

¶24

costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/has been paid to the Legal Services Committee. He has tendered receipt thereof. Zerox copy of the receipt is taken on record.

¶25

The petitioner in this petition is dealing in import and marketing of photo type setting/ photo type composing systems of various configurations. They are in the business for quite some time and operating the same under valid licence. The dispute is essentially generated on account of the respondents not allowing the clearance of various consignments of goods which have been imported under that licence. A detailed discussion of the factual

¶26

aspects is not necessary for disposal of this

¶27

petition.

¶28

4.		This	Court whi	le granting	rule in thi	s
petition	was	pleased	to	grant	interim	relief		and
allow	the clea	rance	of the	concer	ned c	onsignment		on
petitioner’s	paying	basic	customs	duty	at	the	rate	of
35%	on the	said	consignm	ent plus	5%	auxiliary		duty
with	P.D.Bonds	for	the	differential	duty	i.e.		the
difference	between	107%	ad-va	lorem	and	40$	ad-v	alorem

¶29

customs duty with bank guarantee of a nationalised

¶30

bank for 25% of the differential duty.

¶31

¶32

In pursuance of the aforesaid interim

¶33

order,	the c	onsignm	ents	covered	by	the	relevant bills
of	entry	and	invoices	pertai	ning	to the	petitioners
were	allowed	to	be	cleared.	In	other	words, the
interim	order		operated	in	favour	of the	petitioner

¶34

and the goods were allowed to be cleared on

¶35

compliance of the above conditions.

¶36

Now what remains is the final adjudication of duty liability or finalisation of the provisional

¶37

assessment on the basis which the goods were allowed

¶38

to be cleared.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶40

petitioner	submits	that the	petiti	oner	shall	hav	e no
objection	if the	respondents	are	perm	itted	to	finally
adjudicate	upon	the duty	liability	so	as	to	finalise
the prov	isional ass	essment ma	de	by	them.		The
petitioner,	through	their	coun	sel,	unde	rtook	to

¶41

co-operate with the adjudicating authority in the

¶42

adjudication proceeding.

¶43

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶44

Revenue/	adjudicating	aut	hority		also	desired	to
finally	adjudicate	upon	the	duty	liability	of	the

¶45

¶46

petitioner so as to make the provisional assessment

¶47

final within a period of four months from today,

¶48

after following principles of natural justice.

¶49

Having heard the rival parties and looking

¶50

to the consensus between the parties, we also feel that the duty liability can be more conveniently adjudicated upon in the departmental adjudication proceedings in which the disputed questions of fact can also be gone into which this Court may not be

¶51

able to resolve in exercise of its writ jurisdiction

¶52

under Article 226 of the Constitution of of India.

¶53

In the above premises, Revenue is directed

¶54

to proceed with the adjudication proceedings as expeditiously as possible and to finally conclude the

¶55

assessment proceedings within four months from today.

¶56

The petitioner shall keep the bank

¶57

guarantee renewed and alive till the completion of adjudication proceedings and eight weeks thereafter. If the adjudication proceedings are not completed within four months from today, bank guarantee shall stand discharged and, in that event, petitioner would

¶58

be relieved of their obligation to keep the bank

¶59

guarantee alive.

¶60

¶61

12.			If t	he adjudication proceeding	are not
completed		wit	hin fo	ur months from	today	and	delay
results		in	discharge	of bank guar	antee,	then in	that
event,		the	Chief	Commissioner of	Custom	s is	directed
to	hold		enquiry	to fix the respo	nsibility	for	the
delay	and	co	nsequent	loss suffered by	the	Revenue	and

¶62

should submit report to this Court within four weeks

¶63

thereafter.

¶64

With these directions, petitions stands

¶65

disposed of. Rule is made absolute in terms of this

¶66

order with no order as to costs.

¶67

(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

¶68

(V.C.DAGA J.)

Computer Karishma Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Collector of Customs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Computer Karishma Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Collector of Customs 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

The Commissioner of Customs (General) Vs M/S. S. P. Pawar and Sons

M/S. Overseas Trading Corpn. Vs the Commissionr of Customs and 3 Ors.

the commissioner of customs (general and cfs mulund) Vs m/s agarwal marble (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs (Preventiove) New Customs House M. Vs Ashwin Mehta

Biren v.Savla Vs the Union of India

Biren v.Savla Vs the Union of India and Ors.