Dismissed

M/S Geo Associates, v. the Commissioner of Customs

Kerala HC12 Nov 2019WA/2296/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal against a single judge's quashing order was dismissed. The high court held that since the appeal lacked merits due to a concession on procedural irregularities, no detailed discussion was needed. The appellant was permitted to raise all grounds except limitation in re-adjudication. A six-week deadline for re-adjudication was fixed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Adjudicating authority directed to complete re-adjudication within six weeks of receipt of certified copy of judgment.

M/S Geo Associates, Vs the Commissioner of Customs — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.2296 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22198/2019(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

M/S GEO ASSOCIATES, 5/501, CHAMPAKKARA CHURCH ROAD, MARADU, ERNAKULAM682 304, REPRESENTED BY SIJO MATHEW.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR SRI.RENOY VINCENT SRI.NIRANJAN SUDHIR

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, ERNAKULAM-682 009.

¶14

2 DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, ERNAKULAM-682 009.

¶15

R1-2 BY SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SC, COMMR. OF EXICE AND CUSTOMS- SRI. P.R.SREEJITH

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. &

¶20

AMIT RAWAL, J.

¶21

-----------------------------------------------------

¶22

W.A. No. 2296 OF 2019

¶23

-------------------------------------------------------

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2019

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶27

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22198/2019 is in appeal against judgment of the Single Judge, dated 28^th October, 2019.

¶28

The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.

¶29

Ext.P7 order passed by the 2^nd respondent directing

¶30

confiscation of a 'used dialysis machine' imported by the appellant, under Section 111(d) alleging violation of Basel No.1110 of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016; and also the imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs.75,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, was under challenge in the writ petition. One of the main contentions

¶31

W.A. No.2296/2019

¶32

-:3:-

¶33

raised in challenge of the impugned order was that, there occurred procedural irregularity in not issuing a show cause notice and in not affording any opportunity to the appellant to object the proposal for confiscation. From the impugned judgment it is evident that, with respect to the said irregularity pointed out, the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent made a fair concession and agreed for re-adjudication of the matter, after issuing a proper show cause notice. Taking note of the said submission, the learned Single Judge had disposed of

¶34

the writ petition by quashing the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent was directed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner intimating about the proposal for confiscation on the grounds available and to proceeded to readjudicate the matter afresh, after hearing the petitioner.

¶35

The only restriction imposed by the learned Judge in

¶36

the matter is against the appellant raising contention based on the question of limitation. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant will get an opportunity to oppose the proposal for

¶37

W.A. No.2296/2019

¶38

-:4:-

¶39

confiscation on all the grounds available, except the question of limitation. Therefore we do not think that the appellant would have any grievance about the judgment. He will be at liberty to

¶40

raise all the contention before the adjudicating authority, including the contention that the proposal itself is not maintainable on its merits.

¶41

In view of the matter as discussed above, we do not

¶42

think that the writ appeal deserves any merits. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant sought indulgence

¶44

of this court in stipulating a time limit for completing the readjudication as directed, on the ground that the goods under detention is lying idle indefinitely. After hearing Standing Counsel for the respondent, we are of the opinion that it is reasonable to put a time limit for completion of the proceedings by the 2^nd respondent. Hence, while dismissing the appeal, we direct the 2^nd respondent to complete re-adjudication as directed

¶45

above, at the earliest possible, at any rate, within a period of six

¶46

W.A. No.2296/2019

¶47

-:5:-

¶48

weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶49

SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE .

¶50

SD/- AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE.

¶51

ul/-

¶52

// True copy //

¶53

P.S. to Judge.

M/S Geo Associates, v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Geo Associates, v. the Commissioner of Customs

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

Pareekutty Haji Vs Mammunni Gurukkal @ Bava Gurukkal

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Ambuja Cements Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd.