← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/9285/2017allowed

M/S H K Enterprises v. Union Of India & Another

2017-10-10Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mr. Justice Arun Monga6 pages

Gurbax Singh 2017.10.26 10:21 

      

 ! "#$#%&  

'($)% *+*#$ $,-

, .

$ /,-- *,'.

1#.*20. #$ *+*# *-. *#%! *3#-#%0. ##% * 5$

%#%%!# %! %. * 4 $+%! %6$7  '& 89'

 -) ' '9   89'

 -' 9  

     

        

     

!" 3 :)2;

*'# 1,  !

#  

    ""$%""&  ' ( )   !* "+!& ,  ! -       

. /0

  0

   /!1$"2

3 45        -     ( /  !6!12!52 5  ' "

 0       (       /(      

   /  7-

'(    -  '       /

    7(       &"+6  /# !1&*  

  ( /

   ' #  2'#5 7  8          / 7(    / %,' #9 :  ;   #9 :  

     <!

+& "+!" +< !+ "+!"+= !+ "+!"

>   /

 / /)

  ( 6$   

0 0  !$ !+ "+!"  !& !!

"+!"

 ?  (  !$ !+ "+!"  !& !!

"+!" 0      /

   (      

(  

     /      (       / 8(  /  (     # 8 ,/

( >  / / .!++  /0      )(   /  

0 ( >  / /  ,/   / 0     /  ( 



  ,/  ' .

   

      //   / ,  /      0( : 0       (0   (,    (0



 / 

0 /(   (  7

? 0 

 ( != 0

  ?

?@  

 

 0  0 

  

  0     8       

 /

 ( 

 0 7(     

" 

    - / ( >!< +!

"+!$0

 

0 0 (  

/(    

  /

 !* +!

"+!$ -  

"  / /  (    

 '   ) 

/(  

0      -   0    0    +< "+!$      

0     0 (   / 

    A  7 0  



 (  "=     

     -  B!* "+!$   ) 

"  /        (

   

   -      

" ( -   -    / (   

   (  

     /     0     !&!= C    0    (  

0     

   !"" 0)  Hence, the instant petition by the petitioner. 

3.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1and 2 wherein it has been inter alia stated that the present petition is not maintainable as alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. The Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar vide classification dated 15.01.2013, settled the issue of classification and importability under the Foreign Trade Policy holding that the goods were freely importable and classifiable in Traiff Heading 7302 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Since in the present case, assessment made was provisional, the petitioner vide letter dated 13.01.2016, was put on notice regarding the classification of the impugned goods. Vide letter dated 15.01.2016, the petitioner raised the objection on the proposed classification by submitting its detailed representation which was duly considered and the impugned bills of entries were finalized by issuance of an order in original. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made. 4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 122A of the Act to urge that the adjudicating authority is mandated there under to give an opportunity of being heard to a party in any proceeding under this chapter or any other provision of the Act if the party so desires. 6.

Section 122A of the Act reads thus:- "122A: Adjudication Procedure: (1) The adjudicating authority shall, in any proceeding under this Chapter or any other provision of this Act, give an opportunity of being heard to a party in a proceeding, if the party so desires.

(2) The adjudicating authority may, if sufficient cause is shown at any stage of proceeding referred to in sub section

(1), grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the proceeding." &     

0 

 (  )     '

0(   - 

(/( / / (      0

          - /      /      /    ( 



= /(        /

  / % , '  #9 :  ;   #9  

   D

   8   : 0 0 ( 7 0 /    0

 

   

0  "= )

" /     (

  

   -  

"0

  / /(

!* "+!$-  /(

0     / /    

      0      ( 

0

        0    (

 0       /          - ' (    

  

"+!$2<6!59 :

# ""+0    



 / 0  /0/@  / 

(     !+ ' 0        

   

 

 (

0     /    -  ( / !* "+!&, !      /  /  /  

( 

              0  0     ( (         @    , 

    /  ( 0  0  63 :)2;

*'# 17 2!0  "< * ,

   6;#

= 17   >0$8  2!0    @ %  $  

  $