M/S.Sadiq Brothers Marine Works vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 March, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M/S.Sadiq Brothers Marine Works vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 March, 2009

Bench: Antony Dominic

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 6713 of 2009(H)


1. M/S.SADIQ BROTHERS MARINE WORKS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX

3. UNION OF INDIA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :03/03/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                  -------------------------
                    W.P.(C.) No.6713 of 2009
            ---------------------------------
             Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

The prayers in this writ petition are for quashing Exts.P7, P9, P10 & P11 and to direct the respondents to refund the duty, fine and penalty imposed on the petitioner in relation to the 2 fishing trawlers purchased by the petitioner from the Matsyafed.

2. The duty and penalty have been imposed on the petitioner on the basis that customs duty is chargeable when the vessel is taken up for breaking, in pursuance to Notification Nos.262/58 and 133/87 issued under the Customs Act, 1962. The claim of the petitioner that duty is not payable was turned down in Ext.P7 order of declaration, which was confirmed in Ext.P10 appellate order and Ext.P11 order passed by the Tribunal. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging the aforesaid orders.

3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents rightly points out that the case of the petitioner that in view of notification No.47/96, rescinding notification No.133/87 WP(C) No.6713/2009 -2- has been dealt with by the Tribunal in Ext.P11 and has been rejected. It is also rightly pointed out that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act to the Division Bench of the High Court.

4. As contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, Section 130 of the Customs Act provides for an appellate remedy for the petitioner, if they are aggrieved by Ext.P11. In view of the same, I dismiss the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy and leaving open all the contentions raised.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court