Case Law Details
K.G.Denim Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Introduction: The Madras High Court recently ruled on a writ petition filed by K.G.Denim Ltd. against the Commissioner of Customs. The petition sought direction for the consideration of an application dated 05.10.2023, pertaining to the rectification of an inadvertent error in 87 shipping bills. The court’s decision emphasizes the need for the 2nd respondent to inspect documents and dispose of the petitioner’s representation within a specified timeframe.
Analysis: The petitioner, represented by learned counsel Ms. Anu Ganesan, highlighted multiple applications for amending shipping bills due to an error in the UQC Column. Despite these applications, the respondent had not taken steps for rectification. In response, the respondent’s counsel cited unavailability of documents for inspection as the reason for non-amendment. The court, after hearing both parties, directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation, inspect documents, and resolve the matter within 30 days.
Conclusion: The Madras High Court, in disposing of the writ petition, issued specific directions for the timely consideration and resolution of the petitioner’s application. The judgment underscores the importance of rectifying inadvertent errors in shipping bills and emphasizes the need for a swift resolution in such matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s application dated 05.10.2023.
2. Ms.Anu Ganesan, learned Junior Panel Counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had made several applications before the respondent for amendment of 87 shipping bills, where an inadvertent error occurred in mentioning square meters of the Denim Fabrics under the UQC Column of said shipping bills. However, in spite of those applications, the respondent had not taken any steps to amend the said shipping bills. Hence, this writ petition.
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that since the documents are not available for inspection, the respondents are not in a position to amend the said shipping bills of the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on records.
6. In view of the above, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 05.10.2023 and thereafter, to verify the documents of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.
