M/S. Shri. Amman Dhall Mill vs Commissioner Of Customs
2021 Latest Caselaw 13937 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
                                  &
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
       TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943
                          RP NO. 407 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Cus.Appeal 13/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                            ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

          M/S. SHRI. AMMAN DHALL MILL
          B-7/269/1, 2 BYE PASS ROAD, ANNANJI, THENI,
          TAMIL NADU 6254 531
          REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SOMASUNDARAM, AGED 56 YEARS,
          S/O.S.SAKTHIVEL, R/O.NO.46/2269 H, APSARA BUILDING,
          CHAKKARAPARAMBU, ERNAKULAM 682 032

          BY ADVS.
          P.A.AUGUSTIAN
          SWATHY E.S.



RESPONDENT/S:

          COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
          CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 009

           BY ADV M.S.AMAL DHARSAN




      THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P. No.407/2021
                                         -2-




                                ORDER

S.V. Bhatti, J.

The appellant in Customs Appeal No.13/2020 is the review

petitioner.

2. On 22.1.2021 Customs Appeal Nos.13 & 14 of 2020

were disposed of by this Court. The present review petition, as

we understand and as also made clear to us by the Advocate

appearing for the review petitioner, that the Supreme Court, in

judgment dated 17.06.2021 in Union of India v. M/s. Raj Grow

Impex LLP in paragraph no.98, has held as follows:

"The matters relating to the interveners shall also be governed by the findings of this judgment and appropriate orders in their regard shall be passed by the authorities/Courts, wherever their matters relating to the subject goods are pending but, their options of further appeal, only in relation to R.P. No.407/2021

the quantum of amount payable, including that of penalty, is left open."

and the review petitioner is entitled to have same

consideration. The stand is taken note and we are unable to

appreciate the grounds for review and review our judgment.

3. The review petitioner states that no error apparent

on the face of the record could be pointed, and the review

petitioner is constrained to move this Court for necessary

directions on the lines of the judgment of the Supreme Court,

more particularly referred to above.

4. We are afraid that the scope of review of our order is

not properly appreciated by the review petitioner. Having seen

that there is no error apparent on the face of record, we are

convinced that by referring to the judgment dated 17.06.2021

we ought not to review our order and issue directions on the

lines indicated above.

R.P. No.407/2021

The review petition fails and dismissed accordingly. No

order as to costs.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI JUDGE

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

jjj R.P. No.407/2021

APPENDIX OF RP 407/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.1.2021 IN CUS. APPEAL NO.13/2020