2025 (11) TMI 974

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondents have been served and even an affidavit of service has been filed in terms of this Court's order dated 17 November 2022, since no notice for final disposal appears to have been given in this Petition. 3. We now direct a fresh notice to the Respondents, returnable on 04 November 2025 for final disposal of the Petition at the admission stage. The Petitioner is to once again take steps to serve the Respondents informing them about this order and file an affidavit of service. 4. Stand over to 11 November 2025 for final disposal at the admission stage. 5. Mr. Adik states that he will prepare a short synopsis and tender the same on the next occasion." 3. Mr. Adik places on record proof of service. Despite se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd disposed of it vide order dated 30 September 2021. The RA, in its order dated 30 September 2021, held that the first appellate authority's order warranted interference and accordingly set it aside. The RA vide the order of 30 September 2021 restored the adjudicating authority's order of confiscation of the smuggled goods, i.e. the gold. 9. As a result, there are now two conflicting orders. The first is the impugned order dated 22 June 2022 disposing of the first Respondent's Revision Application No. 371/18/B/2014-RA, which upheld the first appellate authority's order dated 2 March 2017. The second is the order dated 30 September 2021 made in Revision Application No. 380/20-D/B/WZ/2017-RA-CX setting aside the first appellate authority'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Copy of the above order No. 78/2020-CUS(WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated 22.06.2020 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit-"A" 3. I say that the present writ petition was filed on 21.06.2021 4. I further say that during pendency of this present writ petition the Revision Authority has disposed of the Revision Application vide order No.240/2021-CUS (WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated 30.09.2021. The order No. 240/2021-CUS (WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated 30.09.2021 is in favour of the department. Copy of the above order No. 240/2021-CUS(WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated 30.09.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit-"B" 5. The Revision Applications were filed by both the parties in the year 2017. The competent authority vide Order No. 78/202....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... anomaly of two contradictory orders would be to set aside both the orders and remand the Revision Applications instituted by the Petitioner and the first Respondent to the RA for fresh adjudication. In fact, this was the relief sought for by the Petitioner in this Petition. The Commissioner of Customs also states this in paragraph 2 of the additional affidavit prescribed above. 13. Merely setting aside the impugned order would not be very fair to the first Respondent. It is possible that the first Respondent has not attended the hearing in this Petition, given the fact that the order setting aside the confiscation was not upset. Similarly, we are not aware whether the first Respondent has been served with the revisional authority's orde....