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 Orders Release of Goods After Delay in Decision-Making</h1> <h3>M/s Mohit Industries, Mundka, New Delhi Versus Union of India and others</h3> The court directed respondent No.2 to make a decision on the provisional release/provisional assessment of imported goods within a week after affording an ... Provisional release/provisional assessment of the goods - import of Cold Rolled Steel Sheet Cutting Secondary and Defective Width Less than 600 MM detained illegally - principles of Natural Justice - Held that:- Despite repeated reminders as well as the circulars (Annexure P-2 Colly) issued by respondent No.1, neither the goods were released nor any reply to the letters sent by the petitioner was given. This Court vide order dated 29.9.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed in CWP No. 19750 of 2014 directed the respondents to release the imported goods within 48 hours in case the same were not prohibited goods. The petition is disposed off by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the letters (Annexure P-4 Colly), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Issues:1. Petition for Mandamus for provisional release/provisional assessment of imported goods.2. Non-release of goods despite repeated requests and court orders.3. Failure of respondent to respond to petitioner's letters.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to pass an order for the provisional release/provisional assessment of Cold Rolled Steel Sheet Cuttings. The petitioner, engaged in the import and trading of Iron and Steel items, imported three consignments of the goods and filed Bills of Entries. Despite complying with necessary procedures, the goods were not released, leading to the petition. The court directed respondent No.2 to make a decision on the matter within a week, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.2. The petitioner's request for provisional release of the goods went unanswered by the respondents, despite reminders and circulars issued. Previous court orders also directed the release of goods within a specified timeframe if not prohibited. The petitioner continued to request for release through letters, but no response was received. The court, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, disposed of the petition by instructing respondent No.2 to decide on the matter and provide a speaking order after hearing the petitioner within a week.3. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the lack of action by respondent No.2 on the letters sent regarding the relief sought in the writ petition. The court acknowledged this submission and directed respondent No.2 to take a decision on the letters, ensuring compliance with the law and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case within a week from the date of receiving the court's order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
