P P INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After some hearing, Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, learned counsel tor the petitioner submits that, for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied if without going into the merits of the controversy with regard to its liability to pay the Basic Customs Duty, on account of alleged forgery in the bills of entry/DEPB, the respondents are directed not to recover further amounts against the said bills of entry till the adjudication proceedings in respect of the imports in question are completed. Learned counsel further prays that the respondent may be directed to conduct the investigations strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law; not to arrest petitioner's representative till some concrete evidence is found against them and not to detain their future consignments on account of the pending investigations.

(2.) Upon this, Mr. Gurpreet Singh and Mr. M.S. Guglani, learned Central Government Counsel assure the Court that the investigations in the matter shall be conducted in accordance with law. They state that future consignments shall be processed strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Customs Act, 1962, uninfluenced by the on-going investigations. On instructions from Mr. Amit Goel, Joint Commissioner, Ludhiana, who is present in Court along with relevant records, learned counsel have also stated that the amounts recovered from the petitioner and the Customs House Agents or their representatives, against the bills of entry in question, shall be given due credit to the respective parties against the demand for Basic Customs Duty from the date of recovery of the said amounts.

(3.) In view of this statement/assurance on behalf of the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition. It is disposed of accordingly.