Disposed

M/S.Asia Overseans v. the Commissioner of Customs

Madras HC3 Nov 2017WP/25576/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought final assessment of imported goods identical to those already assessed in Delhi under Art. 226 writ. Court, noting the petition's long pending status and lack of instructions from counsel, disposed of the matter by granting liberty to respondents to assess the bill of entries. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to respondents to finally assess the bill of entries, if not already assessed.

M/S.Asia Overseans Vs the Commissioner of Customs — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.11.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.25576 of 2007

¶6

M/s.Asia Overseas,

¶7

rep. by its Sole Proprietor, Shri Mahender Kumar 1790-98, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 006. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (SIIB), Chennai Airport Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to finalize the assessment of the subject consignment covered under Bill of Entry No.405833 dated 04.07.2007, forthwith on the basis of identical and same brand of goods already assessed at the Delhi Air Customs in Bill of Entry No.655940 dated 01.06.2007, imported by the very same writ petitioner from the very same supplier.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Satish Sundar

¶10

Heard Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

2.The petitioner had imported Heating Lamps from China. Since the goods were only provisionally assessed and released, the petitioner requested the respondent to finally assess the consignment. However, since there was some delay in doing so, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to finally assess the subject consignment. The writ petition has been pending since 2007. In all probabilities, the final assessment would have been over by now. Since the learned counsel on either side, did not have any instructions on this aspect, this writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the respondents to finally assess the bill of entries, if not already assessed. No costs.

¶13

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
abr
Index:Yes/No
To
1.The Commissioner of Customs,
Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam,
Chennai-600 027.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of
Customs (SIIB), Chennai Airport
Air Cargo Complex,
Meenambakkam, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.A.P.SRINIVAS Advocate, S.R.No. 78474
W.P.No.25576 of 2007
TR(29/11/2017)

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Asia Overseans v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Asia Overseans v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl.Madhu Jayanthi Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Bhavanimatha Electrical Vs The State Tax Officer

S.Arputharaj, Vs The Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Sri Murugan Agency Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Empire Exports Vs the Commissioner of Customs

R.S.Sivaprakasm Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its