Dismissed

M/S Srk Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2024CWP/1018/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-benches common order dismissing two writ petitions challenging customs seizure and adjudication proceedings. The court held that seeking cross-examination and documents prior to the final adjudicating order was premature and an attempt to delay proceedings. Consequently, the relief sought regarding Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 was denied due to the petitioner's inconsistent delays.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; respondents directed to proceed with seizure and pass a final speaking order.

M/S Srk Manufacturing Co. Vs Union of India and… — Customs and Excise | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-1018-2022(O&M) and CWP-22731-2022(O&M)

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

102+225

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1018-2022(O&M)

¶5

M/s SRK Ma n ufacturing Co. Union of India and others M/s SRK Ma n ufacturing Co. Union of India and another

¶6

. . . . Petitione r Vs. . . . . Respondent s CWP-22731-2022(O&M) . . . . Petitione r Vs. . . . . Respondent s Date of Decision: 04.09.2024

¶7

**_****_ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ****** Present: M r. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate f or the petitioner(s). M r. Sunish Bindlish, Sr. Standin g Counsel F or respondent(s). ****

¶8

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶9

1. B y way of this common order, the aforesaid two writ petition s are being dec i ded.

¶10

2. L earned counsel for the petition e r submits that the petitioner ha d been served w ith a show cause notice where af t er the petitioner demanded cross - examination o f the concerned Chartered Engin e er, who had submitted his report , which was th e basis for issuance of show cause notice. Learned counsel for th e petitioner fur t her submits that the petitioner h ad asked for certain document s which were also not made available.

¶11

RASHMI 2024.09.09 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

CWP-1018-2022(O&M) and CWP-22731-2022(O&M)

¶13

Page 2 of 3

¶14

3. I t is the submission of the petitio n er that the cross-examination ha s not been prov i ded, we find that the process of i s suance of show cause notice an d adjudication i s a complete process, which requires several aspects to b e examined by the Adjudicating Authority. It is only after the Adjudicatin g Authority pas s es a final order that this Court o r the Appellate Authority woul d re-examine, i f there are any illegalities commi t ted by the adjudicating authority . A presumptio n cannot be drawn that the Adjudicating authority would commi t any illegality or shall pass orders in violation of the provisions of the Act. I n view thereto, t his attempt on the part of the pe t itioner is found only to delay th e adjudicatory p roceedings with regard to the g o ods, which have been seized b y the Customs A uthority.

¶15

4. I n view thereof, the contentions r aised by learned counsel for th e petitioner inc l uding relying upon the judgmen t s passed by this Court as well a s the Apex Co u rt are found to be only premat u re. In all the cases, which hav e been cited at bar by the petitioner, it is only after the final adjudication hav e been conduct e d that the orders passed are exa m ined by the Court and the lega l arguments w h ich could be taken only after t he final order has been passed , cannot be loo k ed into at this stage and pre-e m pt the Adjudicating Authority t o pass a final or d er .

¶16

5. W e therefore, dismiss the writ p etitions and the respondents ar e directed to p roceed and pass final order. I t would be expected from th e authorities to examine all the aspects and p a ss a speaking order, taking int o consideration all the legal submissions raised b y the petitioner. 6. L earned counsel for the petitio n er has also invited attention t o Sections 110 and 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 to submit that the good s RASHMI 2024.09.09 14:31I attest to the accuracy and which have b een seized were required to be released within a period of si x integrity of this document

¶17

CWP-1018-2022(O&M) and CWP-22731-2022(O&M)

¶18

Page 3 of 3

¶19

months and f urther for any reason it could b e kept for another six months . Learned coun s el for the petitioner submits tha t in view thereto, the goods ough t to have been r eleased as more than one year ha s been expired.

¶20

7. We fi n d from the record, which has b een placed before us, that th e petitioner has attempted one way or the other t o delay the entire proceedings an d therefore it ca n not take the benefit of the time l imitation provided under Sectio n 110-A of the Act. The benefit can only be available to a person who act s bonafide and not to a person who attemp t s for delaying the process o f adjudication a s after the seizure has been d o ne. Therefore, no order can b e passed to rele a se the goods. The writ petitions a re hereby dismissed. 8 . Pendin g miscellaneous applications, i f any, shall stand disposed o f

¶21

accordingly.

¶22

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶23

(SANJAY VASHISTH)

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

September 04, 2024

¶26

Rashmi

¶27

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶28

RASHMI 2024.09.09 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Srk Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Srk Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India 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

Neena Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Cit Vs Bhawna Rani

Vivek Singla Vs Union of India and Others

Jankisons Vs Union of India and Another

S-Cci India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurubachan Pal Singh Vs Income Tax Officer