Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S.Yamuna Impex on 7 September, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.A(MD)NO.1690 OF 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7243 of 2021
1.The Commissioner of Customs,
Customs House,
New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin-628 004.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs,
(Special Intelligence and Investigation),
Branch -SIIB, Office of the Commissioner of Customs,
Customs House,
New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs,
(Group-2),Office of the Commissioner of Customs,
Customs House,
New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004. :Appellant/Respondents 1 to 3
.vs.
M/s.Yamuna Impex,
a proprietory firm, represented by its,
Authorized Signatory Shri T.Rajasekaran,
2/1032/2, Kanna Nagar,
Narayanapuram Road, Sivakasi,
Tamil Nadu – 626 189. : Respondents/Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.8238 of 2021, dated 23.06.2021.
For Appellants :Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
For Respondent :Mr.B.Satish Sundar
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.]
Challenging the order passed in W.P(MD)No.8238 of 2021,
the Revenue has filed the above Writ Appeal.
2.The respondent/Petitioner filed the Writ Petition to issue a
Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to cause release of
the goods imported under Bill of Entry No.3192548, dated
18.3.2021 namely ''Coated Paper Sheets'' without any further delay
2.Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court, in
W.A(MD)Nos.1176 and 1177 of 2021 by order, dated 21.6.2021,
while partly allowing the Writ Appeals, directed the Revenue to
release of imported consignment subject to the commencement of
adjudication proceedings by issuing a show-cause notice which
shall be not later than 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of
the order. After recording the undertaking of the respondent, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
importer submitted that they will participate in the adjudication
proceedings. Further, the Division Bench directed the release of
goods and waived the Detention Charges. The Revenue was
directed to release the subject cargo within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
3.Since the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ
Appeals was not initially obeyed by the Revenue, the respondent
therein filed a Contempt Petition in Cont.P(MD)No.1067 of 20121.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent therein, they have
specifically stated that the goods may be released as directed by
the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals and the learned counsel
would submit that they are willing to execute a bond for the value
of goods and a bank guarantee towards security to an extent of
10% of the value of the goods.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Writ
Petitioner submitted that the goods may be released on the same
terms.
5.Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the appellants submitted that in the earlier case,
description of the paper filed in 4810, whereas, in the case on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
hand, it is filed under IPC HS 4811. Hence the very same ratio
cannot be applied to the present case.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that since the issues are identical, the Revenue may be
directed to release the goods on execution of a bond for the value
of the goods and a bank guarantee/security to an extent of 10% of
the value of the goods.
7.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side, since the issue involved in both
the matters are identical, we are of the considered view that the
appellants/Revenue may be directed to release the goods on
condition the respondent executing a bond for the value of the
goods and bank guarantee to an extent of 10% of the value of the
goods. Therefore, we direct the appellants to release the goods on
condition the respondent executing a bond for the value of the
goods and bank guarantee to an extent of 10% of the value of the
goods. The respondent shall complete their part of obligation
within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and the appellants are directed to release the goods
within two weeks thereafter. Further, the detention charges shall
stand waived.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8.With these observations, the Writ Appeal stand disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.D.,J.] & [K.M.S.,J.]
07.09.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
Note :
1.In view of the present
lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be
utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order
that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
AND
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NO.1690 OF 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7243 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
