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 petitioner to respond to show cause notice, complete adjudication by deadline, allows goods release under conditions</h1> <h3>OM SHANKAR BIYANI Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> OM SHANKAR BIYANI Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 54 (Cal.) Issues Involved:1. Rate of Customs Duty2. DemurrageDetailed Analysis:1. Rate of Customs Duty:Assessment and Clearance:The petitioner imported pillow block bearings from Singapore on 30th July 1989. The Assistant Collector of Customs assessed the goods on 25th July 1989, allowing clearance upon payment of customs duty on the invoice value and the furnishing of a PD bond for 100% of the invoice value. The petitioner complied by providing the bond and paying the customs duty. Despite compliance, the Customs Authority did not release the goods, prompting the petitioner to file a writ application.Provisional and Final Assessment:The petitioner argued that after provisional assessment and payment of duty, the Customs Authorities were obliged to release the goods, having no statutory right to withhold them. The provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act was acknowledged, but the goods were seized under Section 110 on 1st August 1989, negating the right of release under Section 18.Show Cause Notice:A show cause notice under Section 124 was issued within six months of the seizure, and the petitioner did not challenge or reply to this notice. The Customs Authorities had some material to question the correctness of the invoice value, thus justifying their actions.Court Orders and Compliance:Several court orders directed the release of goods, which the Customs Authorities did not appeal. The court emphasized that the Customs Authorities could not oppose the release of goods at this stage due to the unchallenged interim orders.2. Demurrage:Contentions and Court Orders:The petitioner contended that the Customs Authorities' failure to release the goods resulted in demurrage, which they should bear. The Customs Authorities argued that the detention was under Section 110, and no negligence was proven. They offered to issue detention and wharf rent exemption certificates for the period up to 19th December 1989. The Port Trust Authorities claimed a statutory lien and objected to the removal of goods without payment of port charges.Legal Precedents and Liability:The court examined various precedents, including Padam Kumar Agarwalla v. The Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta, and Trustees of the Port of Madras v. M/s. Aminchand Pyarelal, upholding the port authorities' right to charge demurrage. The court held that the Customs Authorities were liable for demurrage if the adjudication proceedings favored the petitioner.Final Directions:The court directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice and complete adjudication proceedings by 29th November 1991. Pending adjudication, the petitioner could release the goods by furnishing a bank guarantee and personal bond, and paying port charges up to 2nd February 1990. If the adjudication favored the petitioner, the Customs Authorities would reimburse demurrage charges to the petitioner.Conclusion:The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and all parties were directed to act on the signed copy of the operative part of the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
