Non Consideration of Representations for 2 Years not Expected from Public Servant: Bombay HC Criticises Commissioner of Customs

- “What is most relevant is a consciousness of such officers, to the fact that, when such enormous powers were conferred under law, there was equally an overwhelming corresponding public duty to be discharged, following the principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness and non-discrimination.”

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court criticized the Commissioner of Customs for non-consideration of representations for 2 years and noted that this is not expected from a public servant.

A show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner, RKZB International, alleging that the Petitioner has undervalued the imported goods, subject matter of the bill of entry as also in respect of past 13 bills of entry. It was opined that the declared value of the goods was liable to be rejected in terms of Explanation 2(iii)(a) to Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.

The Petitioner repeatedly knocked the doors of Respondent No.2 (Commissioner of Customs) by several letters, not a single letter was replied by the Commissioner of Customs. The Petitioner was willing to secure the revenue in demanding provisional release. However, as none of the request/applications were responded, and that the Respondents having failed to discharge their statutory duty in responding to the Petitioner's applications/representations, for the release of the goods on provisional basis, as a last resort, the Petitioner has filed the present petition.

The Counsel for the Respondents in opposing the petition had very limited submission on merits of the Petitioner's case and submitted that the adjudication of the show cause notice is pending.

The Court of Justices Jitendra Jain and GS Kulkarni observed that “It was the duty of Respondent No.2 to attend/respond to the grievances of a person like the Petitioner, who was making repeated requests for the release of goods. Respondent No.2 ought to have been sensitive to the fact that persons like the Petitioner would not make repeated representations without a reason, cause and a purpose.”

The Bench further noted that the “Respondent No.2 hence could not have taken a position, that he would not even respond to such representations/applications of the petitioner. This was certainly not, what would be expected from a public official”.

The Court allowed the petition by ordering that the goods be provisionally released on the Petitioner furnishing a bond containing an undertaking that the Petitioner shall pay the duty, fine and/or penalty as may be adjudged by the Adjudicating Authority.

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