VINAY AGGARV/AL v. NEW DELHI & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
Judgment
Through: Mr. Pradeep Jain & Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocates. versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE IN]ELLIGENCE NEW DELHI AND ANR .'... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Anand, Mr.R. C. S. Bhadoria & Mr. S. Tiwari, Advocates. Mr. Ashwani Sharma from Customs Department for DRI. New Delhi. AND #53 W .P.(C\ l72l20tr VINAY AGGARV/AL ..... Petitioner hrough: Mr. Pradeep Jain & Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocates. versus DIRECTORA]E OF REVENIIE INTELLIGENCE NEW DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Anand, Mr. R. C. S. Bhadoria & Mr. S. Tiwari, Advocates. Mr. Ashwani Sharma from Customs Department for DRI. New Delhi. #s4 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) Nos.l7l-173 of 2011 Signing Date:30.08.2024 17:10:59 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. AND , N.P.(Cl173/2011 Iof 4 r-a VINAY AGGARWAL Through: Mr. Pradeep Jain & Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocates. { ..... Petitioner a 7' VEISUS DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE NEW DELHI AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Anand, Mt. R. C. S. Bhadoria & Mr. S. Tiwari, Advocates. Mr. Ashwani Sharma from Customs Department for DRI. New Delhi. CORAM : JUSTICE S. MURALIDIIAR , ORDER 18.01.2011
#1. Mr. Anand, leamed counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 DRI points out that the main prayer in these writ petitions is for the provisional release of goods. He states that the Petitioner has to apply for the said relief to the Commissioner of Customs Respondent No. 2. He further submits that the present cases involve issues of mis-description, under-valuation as well as discrepancy in the quantity. This is of course denied by Mr. Pradeep Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
#2. Mr. Jain points that on 14th January 2OII, applications for provisional W.P.(C) Nos.I71-173 of 2011 2 of 4 -a release of goods under Section 1 10A of the Customs Act, 1962 have already been made to the Commissioner of Custorns. He produced copies of the said applications. They appear to have been received in the office of the Cornrnissioner of Customs on 15'h January 20II.
#3. In that view of the matter, it is directed that the Comrnissioner of Customs will consider the Petitioner's applications as aforementioned and I-r' any further lepresentations that the Petitioner makes and pass appropriate orders under Section 1104. of the Customs Act, 1962 not later than 25th Januarv 20II.
#4. It is open to the Petitioner, if aggrieved, by the orders passed by the f Commissioner of Customs to seek appropriate remedies as are available to the Petitioner in accordance with law.
#5. Mr. Jain makes a grievance that the panchnamas concerning the selzures have not been given to the Petitioner. This is denied by Mr. Anand, who nevertheless states that another set of the copies of the panchnamas will be fuinished to the Petitioner within two days. W.P.(C) Nos.171-173 of 2011 3of4
#6. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
#7. A copy of order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master. JANUARY L8,2011 s. MURALIDHA& J. r W.P.(C) Nos.l71-173 of 2011 4of4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Customs Act, 1962.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.