TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Appeal dismissed; order upheld with modification requiring address and identity proof for release or interim custody of imported goods</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Customs-IV; The Additional Commissioner of Customs & The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Chennai Versus M/s. Green Line, represented by its Partner Mr. S. Mohamed Kalith</h3> HC dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order subject to one modification: any person seeking release or interim custody of imported ... Assement of import duty - apprehension of the department is that as per the information available on the website of Director General of Foreign Trade, IEC code holder was a proprietary concern, but not a partnership firm, for Sri S. Mohamed Kalith, to claim to be its partner - HELD THAT:- With a view to protect the interest of the department, all needed to add is that the person who is seeking release/interim custody of the goods, shall also produce the address proof and identity proof, so that notice of adjudication proceedings can also be delivered at the said address, with liberty to participate. Excepting this modification, the order passed by the learned Single Judge do not require any further modification. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the Single Judge's disposal of a writ petition challenging departmental assessment of import duty. Undisputed facts: the import manifest was filed by an individual claiming to be a partner though the IEC on record showed a proprietary concern; the proprietor is at large; the department assessed duty at Rs. 22.72 lakhs while the party assessed it at Rs. 4.5 lakhs. The Single Judge directed payment of the department's assessed duty and ordered payment of '50% ... of the differential duty' (leaving a balance of about Rs. 9 lakhs). To protect departmental interest the appellate court modified relief to require that any person seeking release/interim custody of the goods 'shall also produce the address proof and identity proof, so that notice of adjudication proceedings can also be delivered at the said address, with liberty to participate.' Otherwise the Single Judge's order was left intact; writ appeal disposed of, no costs, connected C.M.P. closed.
TaxTMI 
