Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
SHRI.P.K.BOSE – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) 30386/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: JOHN VARGHESE, SONU AUGUSTINE
For the Respondents: SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, ASWIN GOPAKUMAR, ANWIN GOPAKUMAR, ADITYA VENUGOPALAN, MAHESH CHANDRAN, SARANYA BABU, ABHISHEK S., TANYA KADEEJA, ANJANA A.
The adjudicating authority must evaluate disputed duty liability and refund payments made without corresponding liability.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - The petitioner challenged proceedings initiated by the Customs Department regarding duty liability. The adjudicating authority is directed to address the petitioner's liability to pay duties and refund any payments made without corresponding liability. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Liability - The court emphasized that the adjudicating authority must specifically address the disputed liability of the petitioner before concluding the proceedings. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended that he purchased goods from an importer and was not liable for the duty imposed by the Customs Department. The petitioner provided evidence of payments made during the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the adjudicating authority to consider the petitioner's liability and refund if applicable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was liable for the customs duty on the purchased goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the adjudicating authority must evaluate the liability based on the evidence presented by the petitioner and ensure due process is followed.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition was filed aggrieved by a proceedings initiated by the Customs Department against the petitioner. According to the petitioner the additional 6th respondent is the importer and the petitioner who purchased the goods from the importer was not liable to pay the duty.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for Customs Department submitted that, the department, during the pendency of this writ petition, proceeded further on the basis of Ext. P15 and provided opportunity of hearing to the concerned including the petitioner. He further submitted that the concerned authority is prepared to issue orders and the proceedings have not been concluded only on account of the pendency of this writ petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that several remittances were made by the petitioner as evidenced by Exts. P2, P3, P4 and P10 receipts. He contended that the liability of the petitioner to make the payments are disputed and this is the crucial aspect to be considered by the adjudicating authority. Without making any observation on the merits of the contentions, as the adjudicatory authority is prepared to pass orders, I propose to dispose of this writ petition. However, with observation that the liability of the petitioner to make payment shall be specifically addressed by the said authority and in case the remittances made by petitioner is without corresponding liability, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner. If it is found appropriate, the adjudicatory authority shall hear the additional
6th respondent also before passing the orders.
With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE ANK APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30386/2014 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE INVOICE DTD
1/4/2012 EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF IMPORTED LIGHT FITTINGS BY PETITIONER FROM M/S.AL-
SHABIB TRADING COMPANY EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE INOVICE DTD
27/7/2012 EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF IMPORTED LIGHT FITTINGS BY PETITIONER FROM M/S.AL-
SHABIB TRADING COMPANY EXHIBIT P1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE INVOCE DTD
11/8/2012 EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF IMPORTED LIGHT FITTING BY PETITIONER FROM M/S.AL-
SHABIB TRADING COMPANY EXHIBIT P1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE INVOCE DTD
15.10.2012 EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF IMPORTED LIGHT FITTING BY PETITIONER FROM M/S.AL-SHABIB TRADING COMPANY EXHIBIT P1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE INVOCE DTD
15/11/2012 EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF IMPORTED LIGHT FITTING BY PETITIONER FROM M/S.AL-SHABIB TRADING COMPANY EXHIBIT P1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE INVOCE DTD
26/10/2013 EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF IMPORTED LIGHT FITTING BY PETITIONER FROM M/S.AL-SHABIB TRADING COMPANY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN NO CM-187 DTD
4/7/2014 PREPARED BY THE CUSTOM HOUSE, EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS 10 LAKHS AS "PREDEPOSIT"HAVING MADE BY PETITIONER FIRM EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN NO HC-25 DTD
4/7/2014 PREPARED BY THE CUSTOM HOUSE, EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS 10 LAKHS AS 'DIFFERENTIAL DUTY'BY UION ELECTRICALS EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN NO CM -240 DTD
9/7/2014 PREPARED BY THE CUSTM HOUSE, EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS 10 LAKHS AS"PREDEPOSIT"BY UION ELECTRICALS EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY BOND DTD 9/7/2014 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIOENR FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS 37 LAKHS EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 9/7/2014 PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE ORDER DTD
9/7/2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY SIIB OFFICERS EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DD NO 698183 DTD
11/8/2014 OF SOUITH INDIAN BANK FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS 10 LAKHS PRESENTED TO THE SIIB OFFICERS BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DTD
23/8/2014 PRETAINING TO THE SOUTH INDIAN ABNK ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 1/8/2014 TO 23/8/2014 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DTD 12/8/2014 PREPARED BY THE CUSTOM HOUSE, EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS 10 LAKHS AS 'DIFFERENTIAL DUTY'BY M/S.AL-SHABIB TRADINC COMPANY EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF
