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>Delhi HC quashes export misdeclaration order against petitioner following main company's successful challenge</h1> <h3>Umesh Gulhar Versus Principal Commissioner Of Custom (Import)</h3> Delhi HC quashed the Order In Original against petitioner regarding misdeclaration of export goods (Narrow Woven Fabrics). The court held that since both ... Seeking to quash the impugned Order - misdeclaration of export goods - Narrow Woven Fabrics - HELD THAT:- Since, both the show cause notice and the final order that arise from the said show cause notice have already been quashed by the Court qua the main company i.e., M/s J.R. International, the Order In Original qua the Petitioner would also be liable to be quashed. In fact, this Court has recently in Shri Balaji Enterprises v. Additional Director General New Delhi & Ors. [2024 (12) TMI 1208 - DELHI HIGH COURT] also followed a similar rationale as the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The SCN along with Order In Original emanating therefrom are quashed - Petition disposed off. The Court considered the issue of undue delay in adjudication of a show cause notice in the case of Umesh Gulhar, a Director in a China-based company, M/s. Tessuti (HK) Ltd., regarding mis-declared consignments of 'Narrow Woven Fabrics' exported to an Indian importer, J.R. International. The Respondent-Department issued a show cause notice in 2013, demanding differential duty, interest, and penalty. The Court, in a previous judgment, quashed a similar show cause notice due to prolonged delays in adjudication. The current petition sought to quash the Order In Original dated January 15, 2024, resulting from the 2013 show cause notice.The Court analyzed the timeline of events related to the show cause notice, including transfers to and from the call book, personal hearings, and multiple adjournments. The Court emphasized the obligation to conclude adjudication promptly, citing legal precedents and statutory provisions. It criticized the Respondents for failing to expedite the proceedings and for not providing justifiable reasons for the delays. The Court concluded that the delays were unjustified, leading to the quashing of the show cause notice and the subsequent Order In Original.The Court's significant holdings include establishing the principle that authorities must resolve disputes promptly, especially those with financial or penal implications. The Court emphasized that statutory flexibility does not permit undue delays and that authorities must demonstrate genuine hindrances for delayed adjudication. The Court's final determination was to quash the show cause notice dated November 7, 2013, and the Order In Original dated January 15, 2024, based on the precedent set by previous judgments and the unjustified delays in adjudication.In conclusion, the Court's analysis focused on the issue of undue delay in adjudication, emphasizing the obligation of authorities to resolve disputes promptly and efficiently. The Court's decision to quash the show cause notice and the subsequent order was based on the failure of the Respondents to provide valid justifications for the delays, in line with established legal principles and precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
