Disposed

M/s. Makwuds India Privat Limited v. The Principal commissioner of customs

Madras HC22 Dec 2021WP/27606/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions, the Madras High Court directed the Principal Commissioner of Customs to hear a petitioner's representation for extending the warehousing period under the Customs Act. Pending this, the court stayed the action under the impugned taken over notice without adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 1st Respondent to dispose of the application for extension of warehousing within 15 days; keep impugned notice action in abeyance.

M/s. Makwuds India Privat Limited Vs The Principal… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.12.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

WP.NOS.27606 & 27608 OF 2021 AND WMP.NO.29129 OF 2021

¶6

[VIDEO CONFERENCING]

¶7

W.P.No.27606 of 2021

¶8

M/s.Makwuds India Pvt Ltd Represented by its Managing Director Mr.Sinju Abdul Kharim F-8, SIPCOT Industrial Post Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram 602 106.

¶9

....Petitioner

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Principal Commissioner of Customs Chennai III Commissionerate Custom House, 60 Rajaji Salai

¶12

Chennai – 600 001.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Bonds-Sea) Preventive Commissionerate Custom House, 60 Rajaji Salai

¶14

Chennai – 600 001.

¶15

The Confiscated Goods Officer (CGO) Disposal Unit Custom House, 60 Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600 001. ...Respondents

¶16

Prayer :-

¶17

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari and call for the records pertaining to the impugned taken over notice November 2021 issued in F.No.S.Misc.278/2019 – Bonds (Sea)-Pt II by the 2^nd Respondent and quash the same.

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.27608 of 2021

¶20

M/s.Makwuds India Pvt Ltd Represented by its Managing Director Mr.Sinju Abdul Kharim F-8, SIPCOT Industrial Post Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram 602 106. ...Petitioner

¶21

-Vs-

¶22

The Principal Commissioner of Customs Chennai III Commissionerate Custom House, 60 Rajaji Salai

¶23

Chennai – 600 001.

¶24

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Bonds-Sea) Preventive Commissionerate Custom House, 60 Rajaji Salai

¶25

Chennai – 600 001.

¶26

The Confiscated Goods Officer (CGO) Disposal Unit Custom House, 60 Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600 001. ...Respondents

¶27

Prayer :-

¶28

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus and direct the 1^st Respondent to hear the petitioner and dispose of the application dated 22.09.2021 filed in terms of proviso to Section 61(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking extension of the warehousing period.

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

W.P.No.27606 of 2021 has been filed to quash the impugned Taken Over notice issued by the second respondent while W.P.No.27608 of 2021 has been filed to direct the 1^st Respondent to hear the petitioner and dispose of the application dated

¶31

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

¶32

22.09.2021 filed in terms of proviso to Section 61(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

¶33

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had imported Goods during June 2019 and that the period of warehousing had expired during June 2020 when the country was under lockdown due to Covid pandemic. It is submitted hat the respondent had issued notice to the petitioner under Section 72 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 during January 2021 and that the petitioner by representation dated 22.09.2021 had requested the first respondent to extend the period of warehousing in terms of proviso to Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962.

¶34

3.Opposing the prayer, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the notice under Section 72(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued as early as 29.01.2021 which is after the period of warehousing under Section 60 of the Customs Act, 1962 had expired. It is submitted that the application for extension of warehousing under Section 61 of the Act has been made long after the notice under Section 72(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued on 22.09.2021. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no merits.

¶35

4.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶36

5.The petitioner may have a genuine case for extension of time, considering the fact that the petitioner has also applied for setting up of private warehousing facility under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. There are contributing factors on account of two lockdowns imposed in Tamil Nadu due to outbreak of Covid 19 Pandemic.

¶37

6.Considering the same, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petitions without expressing any opinion on merits by directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 22.09.2021 of the petitioner filed under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. This exercise may be carried out by the first respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending such exercise, the proposed action under the impugned notice shall be kept in abeyance.

¶38

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

¶39

7.These Writ Petitions stands disposed of with the above observations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶44

pgp

¶45

¶46

The Principal Commissioner of Customs Chennai III Commissionerate Custom House, 60 Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600 001.

¶47

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Bonds-Sea) Preventive Commissionerate Custom House, 60 Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600 001.

¶48

The Confiscated Goods Officer (CGO) Disposal Unit Custom House, 60 Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600 001.

¶49

+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.69199

¶50

W.P.Nos.27606 & 27608 of 2021

¶51

EV(CO) PM/11/01/2022

¶52

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

M/s. Makwuds India Privat Limited v. The Principal commissioner of customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Makwuds India Privat Limited v. The Principal 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

M/s.Hexa Industries Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Sri Rankanna Steels, Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner

Sathosh Kumar Kannodia Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Mohan Sharma Vs Chennai Metropolitan

S.Rajamuniyasmay Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise