AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Sen appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that in pursuance of the earlier order and direction of this Court, it is now apparent that on 26th February, 2016, the Commissioner Customs (Imports), Mumbai has passed an order styled as Order-in-Original No. CAO 78/2016, dated 26th February, 2016.
That was on the show cause notice alleging duty evasion by misuse of certain notification and violation of Customs Act, 1962, by M/s. Tadano Limited, Japan and their Logistics Contractor - the petitioner before us.
A copy of this order is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The operative order reads as under :
"(a) I order that exemption granted under Notification No. 157/90-(Customs), dated 28-3-1990 in case of A.T.A. Carnet No. JP/H12, dated 15-11-2012, as filed by M/s. Tadano Ltd. vide Thoka No. 18, dated 26-12-2012 for clearance of One unit of Tadano Rough Crane (Model Gr-80DEX, Sr. No. 547929) valued at Rs. 3,28,02,538.00/- (Three crores Twenty Eight Lacs Two Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Eight only) shall not be denied to the importer/Carnert holder.
(b) Since there is no violation found in the conditions of exemption Notification No. 157/90-(Customs), dated 28-3-1990 in case of A.T.A. Carnet No. JP/H12 05350, dated 15-11-2012, as filed by M/s. Tadano Ltd. vide Thoka No. 18, dated 26-12-2012 for clearance of One unit of Tadano Rough Crane (Model Gr-800Ex, Sr. No. 547929) valued at Rs. 3,28,02,538.00/- (Three crores Twenty Eight Lacs Two Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Eight only). I refrain from confiscation of the subject goods under the provision of section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
(c) I refrain from imposing any penalty on Carnet holder M/s. Tadano Ltd., Japan, under the provisions of section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
(d) I refrain from imposing any penalty on M/s. Siddhartha Logistics Co. Pvt. Ltd., under the provision of section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
(e) I order for refund of Customs duty amounting Rs. 1,11,44,475/- (One Crore Eleven Lacs Forty Four Thousands Four Hundred and Seventy Five only) already paid by the importer."
We enquired from Mr. Jetly as to whether this position as pointed out by Mr. Sen is admitted or not. Mr. Jetly, on instructions, states that this is the admitted position and indeed the above order has been passed.
We asked then Mr. Jetly as to how the notice dated 2nd December, 2015, addressed to the petitioner by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, survives. Why should then the petitioner be proceeded against under Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013, as none of the charges, prima facie, can be then substantiated particularly in the teeth of the conclusions recorded in the order-in-original.
Mr. Jetly states that the Commissioner would duly take note of this order of 26th February, 2016, marked "X" for identification and pass consequential orders, but would require three months� time.
We strongly disapprove of such a conduct and when all the necessary acts and actions have to be taken by the authorities parties like the petitioner are compelled to move the Court repeatedly. It is not the first time that this Court is entertaining writ petition at the instance of either the Japan entity or the petitioner. This is the third petition in line and on the same set of allegations. We, therefore, expect the Commissioner to pass all consequential orders within four weeks from today. We post this matter for passing final orders on 2nd May, 2016, before which the Commissioner must pass all consequential orders, else he will have to remain present in this Court with all original files.