Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dimple Vs. Union of India

Dimple vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 09, 1994
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/681500

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 1625/1994, (See 1994 (73) E.L.T. 896 (Tribunal))
Subject
Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dimple

Advocate Shri A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv. and; Shri G. Umapathy, Adv

Respondent

Union of India

Advocate Shri Madan Lokur, Central Government Standing Counsel, ; Shri Satish Aggarwal and ;

Legal References

Reported In
1995(76)ELT512(Del)

Excerpt

- order1. by this petition filed under article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to give effect to the order no. kdl/collr./19/94, dated 15th march, 1994 passed by the collector of customs, customs house, kandla, by which the proceedings initiated by show cause notice dated 10 january 1994 were dropped. the net result would be that the petitioner would be entitled to endorsement on his deec book as per import export regulations and under the provisions of the customs act. when this matter came up before us it was pointed out by the respondents that an appeal was being contemplated against the order of the collector of customs. a direction was, thereforee, issued that the appeal be filed before the tribunal and interim orders obtained. we are told that the application seeking stay of the order of the collector of customs has been dismissed by the cegat on 30 august 1994 (since reported in . in this view of the matter mr. ganguli submits that the effect be given to the order of the collector of customs and that the necessary endorsement be made in the deec book. to safeguard the interest of the respondents in case of the petitioner losing in the appeal, we direct that on petitioner's executing a legal undertaking as mentioned in para 118 of the handbook of procedure issued by the ministry of commerce, government of india, the necessary endorsement on the deec book be made by the respondents and that legal undertaking shall be kept alive for a period of one month after the orders are made by cegat. no further orders are required on this petition. it stands disposed of. 2. mr. aggarwal says that instead of legal undertaking the petitioner should have been asked to give the bank guarantee and further that a direction should be issued to the cegat to dispose of the appeal filed by the department within a certain period. we do not agree with any of these submissions. the petition is, thereforee, allowed in terms abovementioned.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to give effect to the Order No. KDL/Collr./19/94, dated 15th March, 1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, Customs House, Kandla, by which the proceedings initiated by show cause notice dated 10 January 1994 were dropped. The net result would be that the petitioner would be entitled to endorsement on his DEEC Book as per Import Export Regulations and under the provisions of the Customs Act. When this matter came up before us it was pointed out by the respondents that an appeal was being contemplated against the order of the Collector of Customs. A direction was, thereforee, issued that the appeal be filed before the Tribunal and interim orders obtained. We are told that the application seeking stay of the order of the Collector of Customs has been dismissed by the CEGAT on 30 August 1994 (Since reported in . In this view of the matter Mr. Ganguli submits that the effect be given to the order of the Collector of Customs and that the necessary endorsement be made in the DEEC Book. To safeguard the interest of the respondents in case of the petitioner losing in the appeal, we direct that on petitioner's executing a legal undertaking as mentioned in para 118 of the Handbook of Procedure issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, the necessary endorsement on the DEEC Book be made by the respondents and that legal undertaking shall be kept alive for a period of one month after the orders are made by CEGAT. No further orders are required on this petition. It stands disposed of.

2. Mr. Aggarwal says that instead of legal undertaking the petitioner should have been asked to give the bank guarantee and further that a direction should be issued to the CEGAT to dispose of the appeal filed by the department within a certain period. We do not agree with any of these submissions. The petition is, thereforee, allowed in terms abovementioned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial