2018 (10) TMI 1085 - HC - Customs

Court Emphasizes Procedural Fairness in Customs Dispute

The court primarily focused on ensuring procedural fairness by directing the Customs Department to provide the petitioner with a copy of the laboratory ... Refusal to clear the cargo - the petitioner's counsel contends that even this Court has observed in Ext.P1 judgment that the authorities should subject the petitioner's Cargo to chemical analysis. But they have not done so - ex-parte order - principles of Natural Justice - Held that:- True, either party may have its own justification about the respective pleas. But the fact remains that the matter has been pending before the Tribunal. Any parallel adjudication by this Court may affect the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal-a competent one, at that will look into all these issues-either party raises. Nevertheless, as contended by the petitioner's counsel, the Ext.P3 order indeed refers to the report of chemical analysis. Whatever be its utility, it meets the ends of justice if a copy of that report is supplied to the petitioner. After all, the analysis concerns the petitioner's cargo. The respondent authorities will supply a copy of the Laboratory report as mentioned in paragraphs 16 and P17 of the Ext.P3, in three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The validity of that report is entirely for the Tribunal to decide - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Relief sought for expeditious hearing of appeal memorandum before the Tribunal.2. Relief sought for timely consideration of requests made by the petitioner by the Customs Department.3. Quashing of an order issued by the Customs Department.4. Classification of the petitioner's Cargo under a specific HS Code.5. Other reliefs sought by the petitioner.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for an expeditious hearing of the appeal memorandum before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that the first relief was no longer necessary as the Tribunal had already fixed a hearing date. The court noted this and did not delve further into this issue.Issue 2:The petitioner requested a writ for the Customs Department to consider and pass orders on specific requests within a reasonable time. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that despite a previous court order directing chemical analysis of the Cargo, the authorities had not complied. The court acknowledged this contention and emphasized the importance of providing a copy of the laboratory report to the petitioner within three days to ensure procedural fairness.Issue 3:The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order issued by the Customs Department. The court did not directly address this issue in the judgment, as the focus was primarily on the necessity of providing the laboratory report to the petitioner.Issue 4:The petitioner requested a declaration that their Cargo should be classified under a specific HS Code. The court did not make a specific ruling on this issue but emphasized the importance of the Tribunal examining all relevant issues raised by both parties, including the chemical composition and classification of the Cargo.Issue 5:Apart from the specific reliefs sought, the petitioner also requested other reliefs deemed fit and proper by the court. The judgment did not elaborate on any additional reliefs granted or denied beyond the directives related to the laboratory report and the ongoing proceedings before the Tribunal.In conclusion, the court's judgment primarily focused on ensuring procedural fairness by directing the Customs Department to provide the petitioner with a copy of the laboratory report within three days. The court refrained from delving into certain reliefs sought, emphasizing the Tribunal's competence to address the pending issues comprehensively.