TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted from Singapore at Kandla Port in February 2011. It was found that in four of the refrigerators, the said memory cards were concealed, which was not declared in the documents filed by the importer. On such basis, Department seized the entire consignment. The petitioner approached the Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 10079 of 2011 and prayed for release of the goods. Petition was disposed of by an order dated 9th September 2011. Directions were in two parts. For the goods other than four refrigerators and the memory cards, directions were given for provisional release of the goods on certain terms. For the remaining items, the Court passed the following order. "(iii) For further remaining items namely the four refrigerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012 written by his lawyer to the Department seeking release of the said goods. In such letter, there is no reference to the letter dated 22nd September 2011. The Department contends that even this letter was not received. Be that as it may, the Department did receive a further letter 18th April 2012 in which there was a reference to the lawyer's letter dated 28th March 2012. In this letter also, the petitioner made no mention of the first letter dated 21st September 2011. In this letter, the petitioner requested for release of the memory cards in terms of the order of the High Court. The Department did not decide these applications. Instead, conveyed under a communication at page 100A [the precise date of which is not clear] that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vehemently contended that the Commissioner did not carry out the directions of this Court. The Commissioner ought to have decided the application for provisional release made under Section 110A of the Customs Act. The Commissioner ought not to have passed final order of adjudication without deciding such application particularly when the Court had directed early disposal of such application. He submitted that the Tribunal has ample power to pass such interim order as is found necessary to secure the ends of justice. He submitted that no releasing the goods would be detrimental to the petitioner's interest. The value of the goods would fast deteriorate, considering the fact that the goods in question are electronic goods. On the other han....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the goods. When the Court passed such an order, it was not clear whether such an application was already filed. It was, therefore, that the Court provided that if such an application is already filed or if not filed, the same may be filed within two weeks and that the Commissioner shall decide the same expeditiously. There is some ambiguity about application dated 21st September 2011 of the petitioner having been received by the Department. The petitioner firmly contends that the same was received by the Inward Clerk on 13th September 2011 for which a stamp is affixed. Counsel for the petitioner showed us the office copy of such an application on which such a stamp is affixed. We need not dispute this stand of the petitioner. Neverth....