Disposed

Tick Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., v. Government of India

Telangana HC20 Feb 2013WP/35906/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a private company challenging non-release of unloaded imported tyre scrap stocks at Mumbai Port. The court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to file a Bill of Entry and collect duty before respondents release the goods.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to petitioner to file Bill of Entry; respondents to release goods upon filing, due process, and collection of any duty.

Tick Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Government of India — Customs and Excise | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 35906 of 2012

¶3

Between:

¶4

Tick Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director K.M.Shakeelsafi.

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

And Government of India, Finance Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Central Secretariat, New Delhi and others

¶7

…Respondents.

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION No. 35906 of 2012

¶10

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶11

Presenting a grievance that the 3^rd respondent has not released the stocks unloaded at Mumbai Port on 7-11-2012, the writ petition is filed.

¶12

The petitioner is a private limited company. It obtained an import and export licence dated 14-9-2009 from the 2^nd respondent. It is also a certified VAT dealer under the AP VAT Act, 2005. The petitioner imported tyres scrap from UAE and the said stocks were unloaded at Mumbai Port on 7-11-2012 vide Bill of Lading No.CSLDXBINNSA 1033, Vessel No. SIMA SADAF, Voyage-0094, Shipper-Lakshmi General Trading LIC, AJMAN, UAE. The grievance is that the 3^rd respondent without furnishing any valid reasons is not permitting the petitioner to lift the stock from the yard.

¶13

In response, the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Group II (H-K) has filed a counter on behalf of the respondents. To the extent relevant and material, it is asserted in the counter that on examination of records it is found that no Bill of Entry has been filed and therefore no duty had been paid in respect of goods which are the subject matter of the writ petition; that in the absence of filing of Bill of Entry and examination of goods, the answering respondent is unable to respond to the various contentions raised in the writ petition; that for clearance

¶14

of any goods imported into India, the importer has to file a bill of entry to get his goods assessed for clearance and under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, the importer of any goods other than goods intended for transit or transhipment shall make entry thereof by presenting (electronically) to the proper officer a bill of entry for home consumption or Warehouse bill of Entry in the prescribed form. It would then be assessed, as per the Customs Act, 1962 and other Allied Acts, relevant duty collected and goods allowed to be cleared for home consumption. Since the documentation for this processing has not been filed by the petitioner, the goods are not released and could not be released is the assertion in the counter affidavit.

¶15

In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file the Bill of Entry. On the petitioner filing such Bill of Entry and after due process thereof and collection of customs duty, if any leviable, the respondents shall release the goods to the custody of the petitioner. No costs.

¶16

_____________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶17

______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶18

20^th February, 2013. GRR/SCS

Tick Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tick Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., v. Government of India

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. Sarvotham Care Limited, Vs The Asst Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

South Central Railway Vs The Government of A.P.

M/s. Beko Compressed Air Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

The State of a.P., Vs M/s. Shanmukha Traders

M/s.Ivrcl - Navayuga - Sew (Jv), Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary

Mr. Satish Kumar Botcha Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax