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>Supreme Court Criticizes Delay in Special Leave Petition, Orders Inquiry</h1> <h3>ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MUMBAI Versus FRANCIS ODILLO ROEZER</h3> The Supreme Court noted a significant delay of 864 days in filing a Special Leave Petition and criticized the petitioner's inadequate explanation for the ... Duty demand - Bar of limitation - Held that:- It is not known whether Respondent who is a foreign national is still in teritorrial jurisdiction of country or not - therefore, it is directed to the petitioner to investigate the matter and file a clear affidavit to this Court as to whether the Respondent is still within the territorial jurisdiction of Court, or whether he has escaped from this Country. We also direct the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, to conduct an inquiry or to get an inquiry conducted by an officer not below the rank of Commissioner of Customs and give a categorical report to this Court as to why the concerned authorities did not act with promptitude in filing the special leave petition which may have enabled the respondent to escape from this Country. In the report responsibility must be fixed on the persons who are found responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition. Issues:1. Delay in filing a Special Leave Petition by 864 days.2. Concerns regarding the acquittal of a Tanzanian National under the N.D.P.S. and the possibility of the respondent escaping the country.3. Lack of vigilance and efficiency by the Department in handling the case.4. Direction to investigate the whereabouts of the respondent and conduct an inquiry into the delay in filing the petition.5. Requirement for the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, to submit a report within four weeks and fix responsibility for the delay.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court noted that the Special Leave Petition was significantly delayed by 864 days. The petitioner's explanation was deemed insufficient, merely detailing the movement of the file without a valid reason for the delay.2. The Court expressed concern over a Tanzanian National's acquittal under the N.D.P.S. The Department was criticized for not taking timely steps to challenge the acquittal, suspecting deliberate delays by interested parties. There were apprehensions that the respondent might have already left the country post-acquittal, emphasizing the need for immediate action.3. Emphasizing the seriousness of the matter, the Court directed the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, to conduct an inquiry into the delay and submit a report within four weeks. The Court highlighted the necessity of fixing responsibility for the delay and ensuring accountability for such lapses in handling cases involving foreign nationals.4. The Court directed the petitioner to investigate and provide a clear affidavit on the respondent's current whereabouts, stressing the urgency of the matter. Additionally, an inquiry by a senior customs officer was ordered to ascertain why prompt action was not taken in filing the special leave petition, potentially allowing the respondent to escape.5. The Court reiterated the importance of prompt and efficient handling of cases involving foreign nationals, especially in situations where there is a risk of the individual leaving the country post-acquittal. The directive to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, to submit a detailed report within the stipulated timeline aimed at ensuring accountability and preventing similar delays in the future.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
