SHILPS IMPEX Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-189
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 18,2002
SHILPS IMPEX
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
JITENDAR BOTHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2004-2-105] [REFERRED TO]AHSAN WARIS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-2014-3-178] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED YASEEN VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2005-6-105] [RELIED ON]
C.C. VS. PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-232] [REFERRED TO]
NOMAN ALAM VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
D. THIMMESWARA RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-VIII [LAWS(MAD)-2016-10-109] [REFERRED TO]
GROSONS MARKETING (P) LTD VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, D G C E I , LUDHIANA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-219] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AMRITSAR VS. HARINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2007-8-249] [REFERRED]
RATAN LAL JAIN & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) VS. AHSAN WARIS [LAWS(CAL)-2014-11-176] [REFERRED TO]
ADHUNIK CROP CARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-12-85] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned.
(2.)After hearing the Counsel for the parties, it is quite evident that the petitioner-firm was entitled to receive from the respondents Rs. 4,35,000/-, being the price of the goods, Rs. 1,80,000/- which he had paid as duty, Rs. 2,00,000/- for the redemption fined which was paid and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was levied as penalty which has also been paid by the petitioner-firm. The petitioner having paid the duty, redemption fine and penalty was entitled to the return of the goods but as the goods had disappeared they were not returned. It is for this reason that the petitioner has be- come entitled to get back what he had paid and, in addition thereto the value of the goods. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Additional Solicitor General states that some money has already been paid to the petitioner-firm. The balance amount will be paid within a period of four weeks. List the matter after six weeks.
(2.)After hearing the Counsel for the parties, it is quite evident that the petitioner-firm was entitled to receive from the respondents Rs. 4,35,000/-, being the price of the goods, Rs. 1,80,000/- which he had paid as duty, Rs. 2,00,000/- for the redemption fined which was paid and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was levied as penalty which has also been paid by the petitioner-firm. The petitioner having paid the duty, redemption fine and penalty was entitled to the return of the goods but as the goods had disappeared they were not returned. It is for this reason that the petitioner has be- come entitled to get back what he had paid and, in addition thereto the value of the goods. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Additional Solicitor General states that some money has already been paid to the petitioner-firm. The balance amount will be paid within a period of four weeks. List the matter after six weeks.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.