Disposed

Brio Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Ns-Iii) Siib (I) and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2018WP/3328/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench disposed of a writ petition seeking provisional release of customs goods. The Court did not compel immediate release or adjudicate merits or jurisdiction. It directed the Revenue to adjudicate the show cause notice within four weeks, granting provisional release if the deadline is missed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Revenue to adjudicate show cause notice within four weeks; provisional release to be granted if not adjudicated within that period.

Brio Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

17 wp 3328-18=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3328 OF 2018

¶4

Brio Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Commissioner of Customs(NS-III) SIIB(I) and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Atish Dipankar Ray i/b Prashant Nakati for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Jetly for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 09th APRIL, 2018

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. Rejoinder affidavit taken on record.

¶11

2 After hearing both the sides, we do not see how we can compel the Respondent to issue an order of provisional release of the goods.

¶12

3 The Petitioners are aware that goods are kept under hold. The goods are covered by two Bills of Entry dated 25^th and 31^st of May 2017.

¶13

4 It is now stated that after examination of the goods on 03.08.2017 and thereafter, a show cause notice is issued i.e. dated 31.01.2018. The Petitioner challenges the issuance of such a show cause notice. The petition is filed on 12.03.2018.

¶14

5 The Petitioner insisted that the goods be provisionally released and within

1/3

Sneha Chavan

17 wp 3328-18=.doc

a period of one week from today.

¶19

6 On the other hand, Mr. Jetly appearing for the Revenue submits that the Revenue is prepared to pass an order on the show cause notice within four weeks from today provided the Petitioner co-operates and then there is no question of any provisional release.

¶20

7 We put it to the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that we will keep all the contentions open including that the show cause notice is issued without jurisdiction. Merely because a point of jurisdiction is raised by the Petitioner, does not mean that the Competent Authority is automatically denuded of its power and Authority in law to adjudicate the show cause notice. All that would happen is that he will be obliged to render a finding on this preliminary objection of jurisdiction. If he has jurisdiction to decide the matter, then the law also enables him to rule on the point of his own jurisdiction. Given, the fact that the Petitioners have waited since May, 2017, in the peculiar facts of this case, we are not inclined to consider their request for provisional release of the goods.

¶21

8 However, if the Revenue is unable to adjudicate the show cause notice and pass the order within a period of four weeks from today, then, the Revenue shall consider the request of the Petitioners for provisional release of the goods, no separate application would be necessary for that purpose. This Writ Petition itself can then be treated as an application/request for provisional release of the goods.

¶22

9 We therefore, dispose of the Writ Petition by clarifying that we have not

2/3

Sneha Chavan

17 wp 3328-18=.doc

expressed any opinion, either on the point of jurisdiction or on merits. In the event, the show cause notice is not adjudicated within four weeks from today, meaning no final order passed thereof, then, the Petitioners are free to apply for provisional release of the goods and that application then be decided within a period of one week from the date it is made.

¶27

10 The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to

¶28

costs.

¶29

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶30

3/3

¶31

Sneha Chavan

Brio Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Ns-Iii) Siib (I) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brio Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Ns-Iii) Siib (I) 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

Hgp Community Private Limited Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Kryshnajay Developers Private Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Kryshnajay Developers Private Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors. and Mumbai International Airport Pvt.Ltd - Applicant

Jeevee Karan Associates through Prop. Chirag Rajesh Mehta Vs Union of India and Anr.

Smt. Room Mukherjee and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nirvanza Trading India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Ns-Iii) and Ors.