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>Customs authorities must consider fresh representation for provisional release of goods under Section 110A within four weeks</h1> <h3>M/s. HI Rexine, Rep. By its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Chennai Versus The Deputy Director, DRI (Headquarters), New Delhi, The Intelligence Officer, The Asst. /Deputy Director, The Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 2), The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 2)</h3> The Madras HC directed customs authorities to consider petitioner's fresh representation for provisional release of goods under Section 110A of Customs ... Seeking direction to provisionally release the goods in terms of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's contention. It is for the respondents to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after giving due consideration to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Navshakti Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. Commission of Customs, Delhi [2010 (5) TMI 592 - DELHI HIGH COURT], which was on appeal confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navshakti's case [2011 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT]. This Court directs the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents seeking for provisional release of the imported goods imported under Bill of Entry No.7882362, dated 20.01.2025, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off. The Madras High Court, presided by Justice Abdul Quddhose, addressed a writ petition seeking a mandamus for provisional release of goods under Bill of Entry No. 7882362 dated 20.01.2025, invoking Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Customs, Delhi v. Navshakti Industries Pvt Ltd [2011 (269) ELT A146 (SC)]. The petitioner initially sought a positive direction but agreed to have the respondents consider their representation on merits and in accordance with law, referencing the Navshakti judgment.The respondents contended that the petitioner's representation pertained to final assessment, not provisional release under Section 110A. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation specifically seeking provisional release, to be considered in light of the Navshakti precedent, which allowed provisional release upon payment of 30% differential duty.The Court emphasized it was not expressing any opinion on the merits but mandated the respondents to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law, considering both the Delhi High Court judgment in Navshakti Industries Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi [2011 (267) ELT 483 (Del)] and the Supreme Court's confirmation thereof, as well as Regulation 2 of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011.Directions were given for the petitioner to submit the fresh representation within one week and for the respondents to pass final orders within four weeks thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
