2016 (5) TMI 1194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner of Customs (Import - Chennai II) for clearance of the goods covered by the commercial invoice dated 4.9.2014 and consignments of Alloy Steel Deformed Bars also forthwith lying in the port of Chennai and passed the following direction in order dated 30.9.2015. Para 13 and 14 are relevant which reads as under :- "13. Similarly, on considering the question of applicability of the impugned Circular dated 07.11.2014 bearing No.450/176/2014-Cus-IV and the fact that agreement is dated 24.06.2014 regarding the petitioner's goods have been received at the port in consequence of commercial invoice dated 04th September 2014, I find that the Circular cannot be applied retrospectively to the consignment of the petitioner and hence ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellants ie., Commissioner of Customs (Chennai II - Commissionerate) and Commissioner of Customs (Import - I) have no right of audience until the impediments are removed. To support the aforesaid he has drawn our attention to Halsbury's Laws of England to the decision of Hadkinson V/s. Hadkinson reported as [1952] 2 All ELR 567, S.E.B.I V/s. Sahara India Real Estate Ltd, reported as 2014 (3) Scale 300, Amrik Singh v/s. State (Delhi Admn.) reported as 1971 SCC (Cri.) 423, Rukmani Rani v/s. Bhimdev Chopra reported as 1980, Rajdhani Law Reporter, (Notes) 48-50, Kashmere Gate Chartitable Trust V/s. M.G. Shahni reported as Rajdhani Law Reporter, 580, Gogo Rani v/s. Rajendra Singh reported as 58 (1995) Delhi Law Times 204, L. Sundarajan v/s. S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as drawn our attention to para 41 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v/s. N.R. Parmar, reported as (2012) 13 SCC 340, wherein the Apex Court observed that the Office Memo dated 3.3.2008 is a nature of a "Clarification". Essentially, a clarification does not introduce anything new, to the already existing position. A clarification, only explains the true purport of an existing instrument. As such, a clarification always relates back to the date of the instrument which is sought to be clarified. With the aforesaid, he submits that appellants have prima facie case on merit and prays for a rejection of the preliminary objection. 6. It is true that continious wilful disobedience of court orders shakes the very fou....