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 directs provisional assessment of imported 'Dry Dates' within 2 weeks</h1> <h3>M/s. RAMAYA EXPORTS Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD PATPARGANJ & ORS.</h3> M/s. RAMAYA EXPORTS Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD PATPARGANJ & ORS. - TMI Issues:1. Provisional assessment of imported goods.2. Release of seized goods.3. Grant of costs.4. Further orders as necessary.Provisional Assessment of Imported Goods:The writ petition sought a mandamus to direct the respondents to provisionally or finally assess the imported goods, specifically 'Dry Dates,' against a particular bill of entry. The petitioner's counsel argued for provisional assessment of the goods in question, emphasizing the urgency of the matter. The court directed the respondent authorities to conduct provisional assessments of the imported goods within two weeks in compliance with relevant laws, rules, regulations, and government policies. The judgment disposed of the writ petition with this directive.Release of Seized Goods:The petition also requested a writ order to provisionally release the seized 'Dry Dates' if done without the petitioner's knowledge. The court's direction for provisional assessment implicitly addressed the issue of releasing the goods, ensuring that the assessment process includes the seized items against the specified bill of entry. By ordering the provisional assessment, the court indirectly addressed the release of the goods, ensuring a comprehensive resolution to the matter.Grant of Costs:One of the prayers in the writ petition was the grant of costs. However, the judgment did not explicitly mention any decision regarding the grant of costs. It can be inferred that since the court disposed of the writ petition with the directive for provisional assessment, the issue of costs might have been considered immaterial or not specifically addressed due to the nature of the relief sought in the petition.Further Orders as Necessary:The writ petition also sought other further orders as deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case. The judgment did not specify any additional orders beyond directing the provisional assessment of the imported goods. Therefore, it can be inferred that the court found the directive for provisional assessment sufficient to address the concerns raised in the petition, and no further specific orders were deemed necessary or requested by the parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
