Rama Overseas Through Its Proprietor v. Commissioner Of Customs (Import) & ANR.

\ *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

37.

RAMA OVERSEAS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ..... Petitioner Through Mr Umang Srivastava and Mr Piyush Kumar, Advocates.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR.

.. ... Respondents Through Mr Kamal Nijhawan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Sumit Gaur, Advocate for R 1. Mr Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for R2/DRI.

WITH 38.

W.P.(C) 4570/2016 RAKHI TEX-STYLES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ..... Petitioner Through Mr Umang Srivastava and Mr Piyush Kumar, Advocates.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR.

.. ... Respondents Through Mr Kamal Nijhawan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Sumit Gaur, Advocate for RI.

Mr Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for R2IDRI.

WITH 39.

W.P.(C) 457112016 SHUBH INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ..... Petitioner w.P.(C) 456912016 & other connected matters 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.

Through Mr Umang Srivastava and Mr Piyush Kumar, Advocates.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR.

.. ... Respondents Through Mr Kamal Nijhawan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Sumit Gaur, Advocate for RI.

Mr Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for R2/DRI.

40.

W.P.(C) 4572/2016 SHUBH RESOURCES PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ..... Petitioner Through Mr Umang Srivastava and Mr Piyush Kumar, Advocates.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR.

.. ... Respondents Through Mr Kamal Nijhawan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Sumit Gaur, Advocate for RI.

Mr Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for R2IDRI.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

ORDER

0/0 18.05.2016 CM 19052/2016 in W.P. (C) 4569/2016 CM 19053/2016 in W.P.(C) 4570/2016 CM 19054/2016 in W.P.(C) 457112016 CM 19055/2016 in W.P.(C) 4572/2016 w.P.(C) 456912016 & otller connected matters

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of.

2. It would be open to the Petitioner to bring to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority the judgment dated 3rd May 2016 of this Court in W.P. (C) 44112013 (Mang/i Impex Ltd v. Union of India) within a period of ten days from today. If that is done, the Adjudicating Authority will give a decision on the question of his jurisdiction not later than four weeks thereafter, after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

3. The writ petitions are disposed of.

S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 18,2016 pkv w.P.(C) 456912016 & other connected matters

$-35 and 39 to 42 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

j ''I W.P.(C) 4571/2016 I SHUBH INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR | Petitioner 7^ COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR.

i Respondents RAMA OVERSEAS TldROUCH ITS PROPRIETOR Petitioner COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR.

.... Respondents W.P.(C) 4570/2016 RAICI4I TEX-STYLES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ...Petitioner COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR.

Respondents W.P.(C) 4572/2016 SHUBH RESOURCES PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Petitioner COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR.

Respondents W.P.(C) 5582/2016 KRISHNA INTERNATIONAL Petitioner THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Respondeni

Present:

Mr.Umang Srivastava and Mr.Amrit Raj, Advocates for the petitioners in item nos.35 and 39 to 41.

Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for the applicants in all the matters.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

ORDER

% 22.08.2016 C.M.30069/2016 in W.P.(0 4571/2016, C.M.30429/2016 in W.P.(0 4569/2016, C.M.30427/2016 in W.P.IO 4570/2016 C.M.30430/2016 in W.P.fQ 4572/2016 & C.M.30428/2016 in W.P.fO 5582/2016 The applicant seeks vacation of the orders of this court whereby following the decision in Mangli Impex Limited V5. Union of India (W.P.(C)441/2013 dated 03.05.2016) the court had directed the adjudicating authority to consider the petitioners contentions vis-a-vis applicability of the principles embodied in the said judgment and whether show cause notice concerned was issued by the proper officer. The revenue - which has moved the applications contends that judgment of this court has been stayed in a Special Leave Petition. We are of the opinion that the pendency of the Special Leave Petition should not in any manner affect the directions given in these matters and the concerned adjudicating authority should consider the objections, if any, on the same issue as well as other contentions of the parties.

The applications are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

i S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J 2!

EP DEEPA SHARMA, J AUGUST 22, 2016 rb