TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appearing for Shri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is said to be an importer and exporter of electronic goods, Computers and Agro Products, with a valid import and export license, was carrying on the business of import and export of t he said goods. The petitioner has imported certain goods from Singapore vide Airway Bills dated 04.09.2015. The goods were assessed and customs duty was paid, after which the goods were inspected by one Mr. Lingaraju , Superintendent of Customs (Shed), and 'out of charge authorization' was given by the said officer and custody of the goods was given to the petitioner. During the said process, it is alleged that said Lingaraju had demanded illegal gratific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent-authorities, that was dismissed and on a further challenge by way an appeal, the Division Bench has issued a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, which was rejected without appreciating the facts in issue, which is incorrect in law. In that regard, he had sought to apply the Risk Management Systems (RMS) in exports in respect of the petitioner's goods, where it was not applicable, having expressed an opinion that the action taken by the respondent was in order and if any opinion is expressed, it would necessarily be applied by the officer conducting an enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court claiming that there is a concerted action on the part of the respondents,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner and the Commissioner having expressed any opinion, would not come in the way of the enquiry being conducted in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner's apprehension that if officers of the department are appointed to enquire into the matter, it would prejudice and bias the interest of the petitioner, as they would mechanically apply the opinion expressed by the Commissioner, is not a ground on which the petition could be considered. In fact , it is an admitted circumstance that on the same grounds urged in the petition, the earlier petition of the petitioner was dismissed and confirmed in appeal, and the only saving grace for the petitioner was that the representation,....