TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses challenge to cargo container notice, emphasizing case-specific approach. Petitioners allowed to present defenses.</h1> <h3>M/s. Orient Ship Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Commissioner of Customs & Ors.</h3> M/s. Orient Ship Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Commissioner of Customs & Ors. - 2013 (296) E.L.T. 3 (Bom.) Issues:Challenge to legality of notice to show cause and communication of personal hearing dates.Analysis:1. The petitioners sought to challenge the legality of a notice to show cause dated 22 September 2000 and a communication dated 18 December 2012 regarding a personal hearing. The notice was related to a failure to export and account for cargo containers.2. The history of events leading to the notice includes changes in shipping agents appointed by the principal shipping agency in Saudi Arabia. The petitioners took over responsibilities from previous agents and provided undertakings to satisfactorily account for cargo and pay outstanding sums related to vessel and cargo matters.3. The petitioners raised contentions regarding the notice being barred by limitation, failure of the department to adjudicate since 2000, and ownership of goods and containers by the shippers. They argued that the delay invalidated the notice and containers could not be re-exported due to ownership issues and detention at a warehouse.4. The court analyzed the timeline of events, including notices, adjudication proceedings, and changes in agents. It was noted that the petitioners had undertaken responsibilities and sought release of previous agents from liabilities. The court emphasized that delay considerations must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.5. The court refrained from making findings on limitation issues and the merits of the defense raised by the petitioners, stating that these are matters for adjudication. Reference was made to previous judgments highlighting the need for a case-specific approach in determining the impact of delay on proceedings.6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments raised by the petitioners. It was concluded that the interest of justice did not require quashing the proceedings, and the petitioners could present their defenses during adjudication. No costs were awarded in the matter.
TaxTMI 