Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Eastron Enterprises Inc. vs Commissioner Of Customs
2012 Latest Caselaw 1378 Del

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 1378 Del
Judgement Date : 28 February, 2012

Delhi High Court
Eastron Enterprises Inc. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 28 February, 2012
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~10 to 12

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of Decision : 28th February, 2012.

+      W.P.(C) 721/2012

       EASTRON ENTERPRISES INC.                         ..... Petitioner

+      W.P.(C) 722/2012

       MATAJI ENTERPRISES                                   ..... Petitioner

+      W.P.(C) 723/2012

       CELESTIAL ENTERPRISES                              ..... Petitioner

       Through         Mr. Pradeep Jain, Adv.

                                   Versus

       COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS                        ..... Respondent

       Through         Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, sr. standing counsel with Mr.
                       R. Ashok , Mr. Jitender Kumar and Mr. Sumit Gaur,
                       Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR

SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL)
       As identical controversy arises for consideration in these




WP(C) 721/12 & conn.                                      Page 1 of 5
 three writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common

order.

2.       Eastron Overseas Inc., Mataji Enterprises & M/s. Celestial

Enterprises by bill of entries dated 12.12.2011, 14.12.2011 and

7.12.2011 had asked the Commissioner of Customs at ICD,

Tughlakabad, New Delhi to permit and allow import into India of

the Data Graphic Display Tubes, which have been imported from

Malaysia. It was claimed that these goods could be imported

under the open general license.

3.       The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court

alleging that the respondent custom authority is delaying the

release of the said consignment by taking the plea that the goods

imported were old and used and therefore, they are "Electronic

Waste". The petitioners have controverted the said plea and have

submitted report of a chartered engineer in support. It is their

contention that Data Graphic Display Tubes are not old tubes but

are new tubes and they are not refurbished and reconditioned.



WP(C) 721/12 & conn.                                     Page 2 of 5
 4.     When these writ petitions came up for hearing on 6.2.2012,

notice was issued for today's date and it was directed that it is

open to the respondents to undertake necessary tests.               The

respondents were also asked to pass appropriate order within

reasonable time.

5.     In the reply filed by the respondents, they have stated that as

per the prevailing Import and Export Policy for the period 2009-

2014, import of second hand goods except capital goods is

restricted and special import license is required for import of

second hand goods. Data Graphic Display Tubes are also covered

by said restriction i.e. second hand data graphic display tubes

require special import license. Counsel for the respondents has

further stated that they have drawn samples and these have been

sent to a testing laboratory for verification to decide whether or not

the goods imported are new or second hand. Respondents have

written a letter dated 17.2.2012 calling upon the petitioners to

produce the manufacturing technical           specification/ writer/



WP(C) 721/12 & conn.                                  Page 3 of 5
 catalogue/ literature, etc. The respondents submit that they had

obtained information from a chartered engineer, who has opined

that the goods in question are old and second hand.

6.     Ld. counsel for the petitioner submit that they have replied

to the said letter saying that they do not have catalogue/literature

and these were stock material. The contention of the petitioner is

that the consignment are lying since December, 2011 and the delay

is causing immense hardship and financial loss to the petitioners

on account of demurrage and detention charges.

7.     We need not examine and enter into the controversy on

merits.     The assessment order in original is yet to be passed.

Adjudication has not taken place.

8.     Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the delay

which has occurred, it is directed that the respondent authority will

pass an order-in-original determining whether the goods in

question can be imported to India and the duty etc. payable thereon

within a period of three weeks i.e. by 21st March, 2012.



WP(C) 721/12 & conn.                                  Page 4 of 5
 Petitioner/authorized representative will appear before the

adjudicating officer on 12th March, 2012 at 12.30 p.m. for further

proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is

disposed of. No costs.

       Dasti under signature of the Court Master.



                                          SANJIV KHANNA, J.

R.V.EASWAR, J. FEBRUARY 28, 2012 vld

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter