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 grants interim relief in customs delay case, disregards affidavit due to discrepancies. Emphasizes accurate documentation.</h1> <h3>PRASAD SPINNERS PVT. LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> PRASAD SPINNERS PVT. LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 209 (Bom.) Issues:1. Delay in clearing imported goods by customs authorities.2. Allegations of false statements in the affidavit filed by the Assistant Collector.3. Discrepancies in the sampling process and reports provided by different authorities.4. Consideration of perjury charges against the Assistant Collector.5. Decision on granting Rule and interim relief.Analysis:The petitioners imported 42 bales of wool waste, and the customs authorities delayed clearance despite positive reports from the Deputy Chief Chemist and the Wool Research Association confirming the nature of the samples. The petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging this delay, alleging that the authorities were dilly-dallying. The Assistant Collector filed an affidavit mentioning fresh samples were taken, but the petitioners disputed this, stating that the bales were locked in a container. The Court was inclined to issue notice to the Assistant Collector for false statements in the affidavit, adjourning the matter for further consideration.The Assistant Collector later admitted the incorrect statements in his affidavit and explained that one sample contained Mohair instead of wool waste. The Court reviewed parawise comments from the Customs Department and decided not to issue a perjury notice. However, the Court disregarded the affidavit filed by the Assistant Collector due to discrepancies and lack of diligence in reading it. Despite the single sample showing Mohair, the Court found it unjust to detain the goods based on this minor discrepancy among numerous samples. Consequently, the Court granted Rule and interim relief to the petitioners, with the returnable date set for March 21, 1990.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of accurate and diligent documentation by government officers, emphasizing the unfairness of detaining goods based on minor discrepancies in sampling results. The Court's decision to grant Rule and interim relief reflected its commitment to ensuring justice and fairness in customs clearance procedures.
TaxTMI 