Commr. of Cus. (Seaport-Imports) vs Anand Impex

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It cannot be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant/Department that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs and Another Vs. City Office Equipment and Others, , which was decided on 14-3-2013. The submission of the learned counsel for the Department is that the said judgment has not correctly interpreted the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

On our query as to whether any Special Leave Petition was preferred against the same, learned counsel states that a Special Leave Petition has been preferred, but has still not been numbered. This is the position 2V4 years after the judgment has been delivered.

We may also note that the learned counsel for the Department further seeks to rely upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 2101-2103 of 2012 (DGFT v. Nitin Traders), decided on 2-11-2012, which remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge, who disposed of the matters on 5-6-2013 ( Shrishti Digital Solution Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 5), ). On our query, it is stated that in respect of that judgment also, a writ appeal has been filed, but that is still at SR stage (i.e. unnumbered) for 2Vi years! All one can say, the Department is consistent in its actions and delays.

In the present appeals, we are concerned with the decision of the learned Single Judge, in terms whereof the goods have been released on payment of duty. We have set out the aforesaid facts, though really speaking for disposal of the appeals, it is suffice to say that the matter being covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. City Office Equipment (supra), these appeals are liable to be dismissed in terms of the said judgment. Ordered accordingly. No costs.