M/S Srk Manufacturing Co vs Union Of India And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 16194 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Srk Manufacturing Co vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 September, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115200-DB




CWP-1018-2022(O&M)
         2022(O&M) and
CWP-22731-2022(O&M)
          2022(O&M)

                                   Page 1 of 3

102+225

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH
                                              2022(O&M)
                                     CWP-1018-2022(O&M)

M/s SRK Manufacturing Co.
                                                                 . . . . Petitioner
                                       Vs.

Union of India and others
                                                           . . . . Respondentss
                                                     CWP-22731-2022(O&M)
                                                                   2022(O&M)
M/s SRK Manufacturing Co.
                                                                 . . . . Petitioner
                                       Vs.

Union of India and another
                                                              . . . . Respondents

                                                  Date of Decision: 04.09.2024
                                                                         .2024

                              ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
                              ****
Present: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

         Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Sr. Standing Counsel
         For respondent(s).
                                ****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. By way of this common order, the aforesaid two writ petitions

are being decided.

decided

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had

been served with a show cause notice where after the petitioner demanded cross--

examination of the concerned Chartered Chartered Engineer, who had submitted his report,

which was as the basis for issuance of show cause notice. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that the petitioner had asked for certain documents

which were ere also not made available.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115200-DB

CWP-1018-2022(O&M) 2022(O&M) and CWP-22731-2022(O&M) 2022(O&M)

3. It is the submission of the petitioner that the cross-examination has

not been provided, provided wee find that the process of issua issuance of show cause notice and

adjudication is a complete process, process which requires several aspects to be

examined by the Adjudicating Authority.

uthority. It is only after the Adjudicating djudicating

Authority uthority passes a final final order that this Court or the Appellate Authority would

re-examine, if there are any illegalities committed by the adjudicating authority.

A presumption ption cannot be drawn that the Adjudicating Adjudicating authority uthority would commit

any illegality or shall pass orders in violation of the provisions of the Act. In

view thereto, this attempt on the part of the petitioner is found only to delay the

adjudicatory proceedings with regard to the goods goods, which have been seized by

the Customs ustoms Authority.

4. In view thereof, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner including relying upon the judgments passed by this Court as well as

the Apex Court are found to be only premature. In all the cases, which have

been cited at bar by the petitioner,, it is only after the final adjudication have

been conducted that the orders passed are examined by the Court and the legal

arguments which could be taken only after the final order has been passed,

cannot be looked into at this stage and pre-empt pre empt the A Adjudicating Authority ity to

pass a final order .

5. We therefore, dismiss the writ petitions and the respondents are

directed to proceed and pass final order. It would be expected from the

authorities to examine all the aspects and pass a speaking order order, taking into

consideration tion all the legal submissions raised by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention to

Sections 110 and 110-A 110 of the Customs Act,, 1962 to submit that the goods

which have been seized were required to be released with within in a period of six 2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115200-DB

CWP-1018-2022(O&M) 2022(O&M) and CWP-22731-2022(O&M) 2022(O&M)

months and further for any reason it could be kept for another six months months..

Learned earned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view thereto, the goods ought

to have been released as more than one year has been expired.

7. We find from the record, which has been placed before us, that the

petitioner has attempted one way or the other to delay the entire proceedings and

therefore it cannot take the benefit of the time limitation provided under Section

110-A A of the Act. The benefit can only bee available to a person who acts

bonafide and not to a person who attempts for delaying the process of

adjudication as after the seizure has been done. Therefore, no order can be

passed to release the goods. The writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

8. Pending ing miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of

accordingly.

(SANJEEV SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 04, 2024 Rashmi

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

3 of 3