Full Text
Translation output
•r
#64, 65, 4, 5 HIGH COURT OF DELHI 64.
W.P.(C) 243/2016 &CM APPL. 1014/2016
M/S GIRIK INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD Petitioner
Through Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
#64, 65, 4, 5 HIGH COURT OF DELHI 64.
W.P.(C) 243/2016 &CM APPL. 1014/2016
M/S GIRIK INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD Petitioner
Through Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS &ANR Respondents
Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel
Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel
WITH
65.
W.P.(C) 253/2016 &CM APPL. 1029/2016
M/S GIRIK INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD Petitioner
M/S GIRIK INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD Petitioner
VERSUS
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD &ANR Respondents
Counsel AND 4.
Counsel AND 4.
W.P.(C) 224/2016 &CM APPL. 902/2016
M/S A.R. FABRICS PVT. LTD Petitioner
M/S A.R. FABRICS PVT. LTD Petitioner
W.P.(C) 243/2016& Ors.
VERSUS
Page 1 of3 2016:DHC:9184 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ANR Respondents
Counsel AND 5.
Counsel AND 5.
W.P.(C) 225/2016 & CM APPL. 904/2016
M/S A.R. FABRICS PVT. LTD Petitioner
M/S A.R. FABRICS PVT. LTD Petitioner
VERSUS
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD & ANR Respondents
Counsel
Counsel
CORAM:
^ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
12.01.2016 Present writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to respondents to finalize bills of entries filed by the petitioners which have been assessed provisionally during the period 2011 to 2014 for import of polyesterknitted fabric.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are importers offabric and have imported the same from China after negotiating the price. He further states that in pursuance to the said negotiation and agreement for the value, the petitioners filed bills of entries for home consumption. According to him, the goods were examined and found to be
12.01.2016 Present writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to respondents to finalize bills of entries filed by the petitioners which have been assessed provisionally during the period 2011 to 2014 for import of polyesterknitted fabric.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are importers offabric and have imported the same from China after negotiating the price. He further states that in pursuance to the said negotiation and agreement for the value, the petitioners filed bills of entries for home consumption. According to him, the goods were examined and found to be
PF.P.(C) 243/2016 &Ors. 2of3
:<x- in accordance with declaration exceptthe quality and assessable valuewhich was required to betested and hence the samples were drawn.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have made number of requests to finalize the bills of entries, but despite lapse of more thanfive years, the same have notbeen finalized.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that action of the respondents in not finalizing the provisional bill of entries for so long is causing great prejudice to the petitioners as huge amount ofmoney is stuck by way ofpayment ofexcess duty.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that respondents be directed to finalize the bills of entries within a strict time frame.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents, who appears on advance notice, states that he has no objection to the fmalization of bills of entries filed by petitioners but the same should beinaccordance with law.
Consequently, present writ petitions and pending applications are disposed ofwith a direction to petitioners to file fresh representations with the respective Commissionerate within two weeks. Upon receipt ofsuch-a representation, the Commissionerates are directed to decide and finalize the bills of entries filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. Respondents are directed to give apersonal hearing to petitioners on February, 2016.
Order dasti. j| MANMOHAN, J JANUARY 12, 2016 m
:<x- in accordance with declaration exceptthe quality and assessable valuewhich was required to betested and hence the samples were drawn.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have made number of requests to finalize the bills of entries, but despite lapse of more thanfive years, the same have notbeen finalized.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that action of the respondents in not finalizing the provisional bill of entries for so long is causing great prejudice to the petitioners as huge amount ofmoney is stuck by way ofpayment ofexcess duty.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that respondents be directed to finalize the bills of entries within a strict time frame.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents, who appears on advance notice, states that he has no objection to the fmalization of bills of entries filed by petitioners but the same should beinaccordance with law.
Consequently, present writ petitions and pending applications are disposed ofwith a direction to petitioners to file fresh representations with the respective Commissionerate within two weeks. Upon receipt ofsuch-a representation, the Commissionerates are directed to decide and finalize the bills of entries filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. Respondents are directed to give apersonal hearing to petitioners on February, 2016.
Order dasti. j| MANMOHAN, J JANUARY 12, 2016 m
W.P.(C) 243/2016 &Ors. ^
JUDGMENT