2019 (11) TMI 1621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....10.2018 (Annexure P-18 collectively). A copy of the same stood supplied to the counsel for the respondents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, as prayed for. The aforesaid affidavit dated 31.10.2018 and letter dated 24.10.2018 are taken on record as P-18 (collectively). Registry to place the same at proper place and paginate accordingly. Reply, if any, be filed by the counsel for respondents by the adjourned date. CM No. 16007-CWP of 2018 The petitioner has filed the present application for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents in view of the contents of his additional affidavit dated 31.10.2018, taken on record as P-18 (collectively); and further prayer is for directing the respondents ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etention Certificate dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure P-12) issued by the Customs Authority requested the Warehouse Keeper/respondent No. 3 to waive off the ground rent, who vide his letter dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure P-11) refused to clear/release the goods without payment of storage charges amounting to Rs. 4.45 crores in violation of the provisions of the Handling Regulations and the schemes of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Customs), Ludhiana, also washed off its hands, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide memo dated 07.05.2018 (Annexure P-15) by holding that the Department of Customs having already issued the Detention Certificate dated 14.03.2018 (P-12), the matter now was between the Importerpetitioner and the Wareh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Supreme Court, and inspite of dropping of proceedings and payment of the due customs duty, has been deprived of its goods by the action of the respondents, which virtually amounts to misleading this Court, inviting severe exemplary action. The goods were seized by the Customs Department and the Warehouse Keeper (respondent No. 3) is their licencee, who refused to accept the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs and proceeded to auction the goods in violation of the statutory procedure, moreso, when this Court was seized of the matter. In support, counsel for the petitioner has cited case law (1) Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, reported as  2017 (346) E.L.T. 65 (Del.); (2) Paswara Chemicals Ltd. Versu....