Lapse of 16 years: Madras HC directs to Pay Differential Duty on Portable Emergency Lamp [Read Order]

The Madras High Court directed the petitioner to pay differential duty on portable emergency lamp even when there was a lapse of 16 years for filing the writ petition.

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs under which the petitioner has been called upon to pay the differential duty of Rupees Two lakhs twenty two thousand four hundred and twenty seven in respect of the portable emergency lamp, imported by the petitioner, Manoj Kumar Dhariwal, in the year 2002.

The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the grounds that despite steps having been taken by the respondents to recover the differential duty in the year 2006, the respondents, after receipt of theeply from the petitioner in the year 2006, did not proceed further with regard to the differential duty, which is claimed under the impugned order in original.

The Counsel for the petitioner argued that in respect of the very same goods, which were imported by the petitioner, namely, emergency lamps, other importers have got benefit as seen from the Order in Appealpassed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Therefore, according to the petitioner, there cannot be any discrimination and the petitioner must also be given the very same benefit.

The Counsel for the respondents contended that since the order has been served on the petitioner by the respondents in all the available means as prescribed under Section 153 of the Customs Act and the defaulter has failed to use the opportunity within the stipulated time, filing a writ petition seeking an opportunity to avail an appeal remedy against the Order in Original is time barred and is an attempt to only further delay the process of recovery.

The Court of Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that “No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if such a direction is issued as the respondents will be getting revenue in view of the deposit made by the petitioner pursuant to the directions given by this Court today.”

The Court also noted that since the petitioner has approached the Court belatedly, the Court was of theview that after a lapse of almost sixteen years from the date of the impugned order must be put on terms for quashing the impugned order.

The Court also directed the petitioner to deposit with the first respondent a sum of Rupees Two lakhs twenty two thousand four hundred and twenty seven within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates