Madras High Court
M/S.Travancore Solvents & Oils vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 12 January, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD).No.19248 of 2021
M/s.Travancore Solvents & Oils,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
VI/260(20), IInd Floor,
Palmlands Buildings,
Bank Junction, Aluva,
Ernakulam – 683 101,
Kerala State. : Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (SIIB),
Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 628 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/26
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
4. The Superintendent of Customs.
Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB),
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3
to release forthwith the petitioner's consignment of imported Black
Pepper under Bill of Entry No.4656562 dated 13.07.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar,
for M/s.Isaac Chambers (Law Firm)
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan,
Senior Standing Counsel for Customs
for R1 to R4
ORDER
********************
The writ petitioner has imported '30120.00 kilograms of Black
Pepper Sri Lankan origin' (hereinafter 'said consignment' for the sake of
convenience and clarity). A 'Bill of Entry dated 13.07.2021 bearing
reference No.4656562' (hereinafter 'said Bill of Entry' for the sake of
convenience and clarity) for home consumption was filed. Thereafter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
more than two and half months later, writ petitioner was visited with a
summons under Section 108 of 'the Customs Act, 1962 (Act No.52 of
1962)' (hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity)
calling upon the writ petitioner to give annual statement, balance sheet,
remittance particulars etc., and the writ petitioner was called upon to
appear before the officer concerned on 12.10.2021. This Court is
informed that the writ petitioner appeared and produced the documents
sought for. Thereafter as the consignment was not released, the writ
petitioner sent two representations one dated 08.10.2021 and another
dated 21.10.2021. Immediately thereafter, a seizure memo was issued on
26.10.2021 seizing the said consignment. Though no reasons have been
given in the seizure memo, as the said consignment remains seized, writ
petitioner has come before this Court with the captioned writ petitioner
seeking release of said consignment vide said Bill of Entry. This Court
issued notice on 23.12.2021 vide proceedings which reads as follows:
'Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Advocate instructed
by the Counsel on record for the writ petitioner is before me.
2.Learned Senior Counsel submits that the captioned
writ petition pertains to import of Black Pepper from Sri
Lanka, a similar issue came up before this Court vide W.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
(MD)No.21469 of 2021 and the same was disposed of by this
Court in and by order dated 03.12.2021.
3.Mr.R.Aravindan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
Customs who accepts notice on behalf of all the four
respondents submits that there may be certain factual
differences qua the aforementioned earlier order cited by
learned Senior Counsel and learned Revenue Counsel requests
for time to get instructions and revert to this Court. Request
acceded to.
4.Registry to show the name of aforementioned learned
Revenue Counsel from the next listing.
5.List on 04.01.2022.'
Thereafter, there were four listings on 04.01.2022, 06.01.2022,
10.01.2022 and 11.01.2022 respectively and the proceedings made on
those listings are read as follows:
Proceedings dated 04.01.2022:
'Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of
earlier proceedings made in previous listing on 23.12.2021.
Today, this Court is informed that there is a change in learned
Revenue counsel and in place of Mr.R.Aravindan, learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
Senior Standing Counsel, Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned
Senior Standing Counsel for Central Excise and Customs
would now be representing the respondents. Registry to show
the name of Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for Central Excise and Customs from the next listing.
2. Learned Revenue counsel submits that a counter-
affidavit has been email filed but the same has not been placed
before me. Let the Registry do the needful before the next
listing.
3. List on 06.01.2022.'
Proceedings dated 06.01.2022:
'At request of Revenue Counsel, list under the
Admission Board on Monday (10.01.2022).'
Proceedings dated 10.01.2022:
'Read this in conjunction with and in continuation
of earlier proceedings made in previous listing on
04.01.2022.
2. Today the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents
forming part of a typed set of papers (referred to in
04.01.2022 proceedings) has been placed before this Court.
3. List in the admission board tomorrow.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
4. List on 11.01.2022.'
Proceedings dated 11.01.2022:
'When the matter was taken up, order dated 22.12.2021
made in W.A(MD No.1782 of 2021 by a Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in M/s.Al Qahir International case came
up for consideration.
2. Learned Revenue Counsel requested for a short
accommodation to get instructions on implementation qua the
aforementioned order and revert to this Court. Request
acceded to. List tomorrow in the admission boar i.e., motion
list.
3. List on 12.01.2022.'
2. The aforementioned proceedings are telltale qua the trajectory
the matter has taken thus far.
3. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel instructed by
Mr.Ragatheesh Kumar of M/s.Isaac Chambers (Law Firm) counsel on
record for writ petitioner submits that a perusal of the counter-affidavit of
the Revenue shows that the crux and gravamen of the issue is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
allegation that the invoices qua said consignment have been overvalued
so as to circumvent Minimum import price (MIP) of Rs.500/- per
kilogram as import of Black Pepper up to the value of Rs.500/- per
kilogram is prohibited vide notification No.21/2015-2020 dated
25.07.2018 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).
Advancing further arguments, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
issue as to provisional release of such Black Pepper which are under
seizure i.e., said consignment on grounds of alleged over valuation of
invoices (allegedly to circumvent import restrictions) is no longer res
integra as provisional release of similar consignments which were seized
on same grounds have been directed to by way of a series of judicial
orders by this Court, the said orders have been complied and
consignments have been released is learned Senior Counsel's further say.
It was submitted that these orders are pivoted on Section 110A of said
Act. The orders placed before me are, order dated 14.07.2021 made in
W.P.No.12454 of 2021, order dated 23.08.2021 made in W.P(MD) No.
13790 of 2021 and order dated 03.12.2021 made in W.P(MD) No.21469
of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
4. In response to the aforementioned arguments, Mr.B.Vijay
Karthikeyan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Customs (Revenue
Counsel) drew the attention of this Court to Board Circular No.1/2011
dated 04.01.2011 and Board Circular No.35/2017 dated 16.08.2017. To
be noted, 'Board' refers to 'Central Board to Excise & Customs, New
Delhi' in the case on hand. Former circular pertains to 'Export' and the
latter pertains to 'Import'. Learned Revenue counsel drew the attention of
this Court to paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of latter circular and argued that
there should be sufficient security. Learned Revenue counsel also drew
the attention of this Court to two Division Bench orders one dated
07.09.2017 made in W.A.Nos.1019 & 1020 of 2017 (The Commissioner
of Customs (Exports) v. M/s.Sri G.P.R.Leathers) and another dated
20.02.2019 made in W.A.Nos.236 of 2019 and batch cases, (Unik
Traders v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai) reported in
2019 (367) E.L.T.353 (Mad.).
5. By way of reply, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in the
aforementioned three orders, pressed into service by him the facts are
identical, the consignment is same i.e., Black Pepper and one of the three
orders, namely, order dated 23.08.2021 made in W.P(MD) No.13790 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
2021 has been carried in appeal by way of W.A(MD) No.1782 of 2021
which was disposed of by a Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated
22.12.2021. There is no disputation or disagreement before me that the
consignment is the same and the facts are identical. One of the these
matters carried to a Hon'ble Division Bench by way of an intra-court
appeal is Al Qahir International case (M/s.Al Qahir International v.
The Commissioner of Customs). In Al Qahir case, learned Single Judge
vide order dated 23.08.2021, inter alia directed release of goods on
execution of bank guarantee for interest, penalty or charges that may be
charged. This is vide paragraph 38 (i) of the Single Judge's order. The
importer carried the matter in appeal by way of intra-court appeal and a
Hon'ble Division Bench vide its 22.12.2021 order modified the
conditions imposed by learned Single Judge with regard to bank
guarantee alone and said bond will suffice. This is vide paragraph 12 of
the order of Hon'ble Division Bench. Paragraph 38 of order of Hon'ble
Single Judge and paragraphs 12 to 14 of the order of Hon'ble Division
Bench read as follows:
Paragraph 38 of Single Judge's order:
'38.In this context, the earlier order passed by the learned
Judge referred to above in similar circumstances in M/s.Global
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
Metro case, can very well be followed in the present case also.
Accordingly, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed
of with the following order:
(i)that the impugned order is set aside for
the reasons discussed above and in view of the
same, the respondent is hereby directed to pass
orders for releasing the goods in question by way
of provisional release of course by imposing the
following conditions:
that the petitioner shall pay the entire
customs duty and also to execute a bank guarantee
for interest, penalty or charges that may be
charged and in this context, the respondent before
passing such order for provisional release, shall
quantify the amount, which may be imposed by
way of penalty and charges etc., on the petitioner
and equal to that amount, the bank guarantee
shall be obtained from the petitioner and after
getting the same, the goods in question shall be
released by way of provisional release.
(ii)Further, this Court wants the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
Customs Department to complete the adjudication
process at the earliest, for which, the petitioner
shall cooperate without taking any unnecessary
adjournments and after completing the
adjudication process at the earliest, within a
reasonable time, ultimately if the Customs
Department comes to a conclusion that the goods
in question are prohibited goods, within the
meaning of notification dated 25.07.2018, the
needful as per law shall be undertaken by the
Customs Department. That apart, the Customs
Department shall also make a recommendatory
report to the DGFT to initiate action against the
petitioner within the meaning of Section 8 of the
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act,
1992. The needful as indicated above to pass
orders of making provisional release of the goods
concerned shall be undertaken within a period of
one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(iii) It is further made clear that, insofar as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
the claim to be made with regard to the waiver
charges, it can be considered separately in
accordance with law.'
Paragraphs 12 to 14 of order of Division Bench:
'12. To make it clear, we modify the condition imposed
by the Writ Court to furnish bank guarantee to furnish a bond
to the same value. So far as the adjudication is concerned, the
authorities are to proceed with the same without being
influenced by this order as this order does not express any
opinion in that regard.
13. Excepting the above modification, the order passed
by the learned Single Judge in all other aspects shall stand
confirmed.
14. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No
Costs.'
6. As regards the G.P.R.Leathers case i.e., order dated 07.09.2017
placed before me by learned Revenue Counsel, the same is clearly
distinguishable on facts at least for two reasons. One reason is
G.P.R.Leathers case pertains to 'Export' and it is a case of alleged
misdeclaration. The second reason is the question there was whether the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
consignment is a finished product i.e., finished leather or not and that
was a case where Board Circular No.1/11 dated 04.01.2011 pertaining to
'Export' was dealt with.
7. Likewise, Unik Traders case is also clearly distinguishable on
facts as that was a case pertaining to disputation qua 'Certificate of
Country of Origin' (hereinafter 'Certificate of COO' for brevity).
Moreover, Unik Traders case was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).7096/2019 with SLP(C) No.
7310/2019, SLP(C) No.7320/2019, SLP(C) No.7325/2019, SLP(C) No.
7332/2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.05.2019
sent the matter back to the High Court. The Single Judge thereafter
decided the matter by an order dated 09.07.2019 in W.P(MD).No.15575
of 2019. It may not be necessary to dilate any further on facts or
trajectory as Unik Traders case is clearly distinguishable on facts that
being a case of disputation qua Certificate of COO for a consignment of
Aracknut. The case on hand is on a entirely different footing.
8. In this regard, this Court reminds itself of the oft cited
celebrated Padma Sundara Rao case (Padma Sundara Rao v. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
Tamil Nadu) reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533, wherein a Constitution
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the manner in which case law
precedents have to be looked into has been articulated, relevant
paragraph in Padma Sundara Rao case is paragraph 9 and the same reads
as follows:
'9......... There is always peril in treating the words
of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a
legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that
judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a
particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington v. British
Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : 1972 AC 877 (HL)
[Sub nom British Railways Board v. Herrington, (1972) 1
All ER 749 (HL)]]. Circumstantial flexibility, one
additional or different fact may make a world of
difference between conclusions in two cases.'
9. That leaves us with Al Qahir International case. Al Qahir
International case is virtually identical, only the names of the importers,
quantity of the consignment, dates of import, dates of bills of entry are
different. To be noted, there is no disputation or disagreement the factual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
matrix is identical as between Al Qahir case and the matter on hand now
before this Court. More importantly, Al Qahir International case has been
accepted by the Department and learned Revenue counsel has placed
before me the electronic mail instructions received by him and a scanned
reproduction of the trail mail is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
10. Besides the above, this Court is also informed that the other
two orders of two other Single Judges dated 14.07.2021 in M/s.Global
Metro v. The Commissioner of Customs and others and 03.12.2021 in
M/s.Southern Trade Links v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence have also been accepted by the Department,
complied with and the consignment have been released (without even
carrying the matter on intra-court appeal). To be noted, one of these three
earlier orders was made by me. The importer also did not go on appeal.
There is no disputation or disagreement about this aspect of the matter
also.
11. The first of the above mentioned three orders being order dated
14.07.2021 made in W.P.No.12454 of 2021 made by another Hon'ble
Single Judge is as follows:
'Heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel
appearing for Dr.S.Krishnandh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.K.Mohanamurali, learned Senior Panel Counsel for
Customs Department/R1 to R4 and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned
Senior Panel Counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
(DRI)/R5 & R6.
2. This Writ Petition challenges, by way of certiorarified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
mandamus, communication dated 25.05.2021, which has been
issued by R4/Deputy Commissioner of Customs conveying the
decision of the Chief Commissioner of Customs rejecting the
petitioner's request for provisional release of consignments of
import of black pepper that have been seized vide seizure memo
dated 03.04.2021. They also seek a direction to the respondents to
release the goods provisionally in terms of Section 110A of the
Customs Act 1962 (in short 'Act') and issue Demurrage-cum-
Detention Waiver Certificate for waiver of Demurrage and
Container Detention Charges, in respect of the said goods in
terms of Section 6(1)(l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas
Regulations 2009 read with Regulation 10(1)(l) of Sea Cargo
Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018.
3. The petitioner has imported five consignments vide Bill
of Entry Nos. 3185706 dated 17.03.2021, 3212240 dated
19.03.2021, 3256382 dated 23.03.2021, 3256389 dated
23.03.2021 and 3308760 dated 26.03.2021. The petitioner sought
release of the consignments, both before the DRI as well as the
authorities under the Customs Act, being the Commissioner of
Customs as well as the Chief Commissioner of Customs. A
detailed communication of the DRI dated 26.04.2021 indicates
certain concerns that the DRI had entertained in regard to the
consignments imported.
4. The crux of the litigation turns upon the valuation of the
consignments in question, as Notification No.21/2015-20 dated
25.07.2018 (Notification in question) permits entry of black
pepper falling under Entry No.0904 11 30 only if the CIF value of
the import was Rs.500/- per kg or above. Imports of value less
than Rs.500/- per kg is prohibited. It was the apprehension of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
DRI that the goods have been over valued by the petitioner in
order to render them freely importable, the word 'free' being used
in the context of 'permitted to be imported', as the commodities
are otherwise subject to duty at the rate of 8%.
5. Being of the view that the value of the consignments was
in excess of what was the true value, investigation was undertaken
by the DRI. The ongoing investigation takes note of various
documents that appear to indicate that the pricing of the
commodity was less than that revealed by the petitioner and also
that full consideration had not been remitted to the supplier
overseas. Moreover, the DRI states that it is in possession of
information to the effect that sales of the consignments importer
earlier had been undertaken by the petitioner in the open market
at a sum less than the import value.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid material stated to have
been gathered by the DRI, the apprehension that arose was that
the goods had been consciously inflated in value merely to enable
their import in terms of the Notification in question. This
narration is captured in the communication of DRI dated
26.04.2021 issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs,
wherein, in conclusion they say that investigation was under
progress and that the report would be forwarded to the Customs
Department, post completion. As far as release is concerned, the
ball is placed in the court of customs, the DRI leaving it to the
customs authorities to consider the request for release in terms of
Section 110 A of the Act.
7. The final stand of the DRI however, as conveyed vide
communication dated 15.04.2021, paragraph 2 is categoric to the
effect that 'this office does not have any objection for provisional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
release of the said goods'. They continue to state at paragraph 3
that 'It is herein requested that the said goods may be
provisionally released as per the conditions stipulated under
section 110 A of Customs Act, 1962.'. Thus the DRI before whom
the investigation is stated to be on-going in regard to the
valuation of the goods has expressed no objection for the release
of the same.
8. Based on the communication of the DRI dated
15.04.2021, the Deputy Commissioner/R2 on 05.05.2021
communicates to the petitioner that the request for provisional
release was rejected by the adjudicating authority. There is some
confusion as to who is the adjudicating authority in this case, as
in the communications of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs,
she merely refers to the rejection of request by the 'adjudicating
authority' without specifying who that authority is. Petitioner
before me is also unable to clarify this issue.
9. The request of the petitioner before the Chief
Commissioner (who is not arrayed as a party before me) has been
rejected and conveyed to the petitioner by the Deputy
Commissioner under impugned order dated 25.05.2021. The
order is cryptic and merely rejects the request stating that the
import of the goods was prohibited as per the policy condition. It
appears to me that the cart has been put before the horse, as
admittedly investigation is presently on-going.
10. The crux of the apprehensions are as follows:
3. Investigation has revealed the
following:
The imports of Black Pepper from Sri
Lanka by M/s Global Metro in controlled by Shri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
Arshad Shajahan.
M/s Global Metro has imported black
pepper by declaring the unit price in the range
of Rs 501 to Rs. 512/kg. The terms of payment as
per the Invoice in most cases is around 50% on
DP/DAP terms i.e. Documents against Payment
and balance on DA terms L.e. Documents
against Acceptance. The time limit for making
DA payment is 90 days to 120 days as per
commercial Invoice.
The said importer has made payments to
the overseas muppliers only to an extent of
payment against DP terms as per the
Commercial Invoice. However, he has not paid
the balance amount to the overseas supplier
even after the expiry of time period of 90-120
days. He has accepted all the imported Black
Pepper without raising any objection with the
overseas suppliers on quality issues, in sum,
there is no reason recorded by M/s Global Metro
to make the lower payments.
As per the documents recovered such as
Sales Contract, email communication recovered
during the search of the premises of M/s Global
Metro it is found that the actual unit price of
Black Pepper imported by M/s Global Metro
from Sri Lanka is between USD 3- USD 4 per Kg
L.e. much below the declared unit price of Rs.
500 per Kg and less than the MIP specified in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
the FTP making the goods prohibited.
On receipt of such imported black pepper
from M/s Global Metro has sold them in the
domestic market at a Unit price in the range of
Rs. 300- Rs. 425/kg although the unit price of
Rs. 502-Rs. 515/kg has been declared to the
Customs authorities for the said imports.
Further, the total value of import of Black
Pepper by M/s Global Metro, as declared to
Customs, for the period from May-2020 till date
is around 31 Crores. However, it appears that
M/s Global Metro has paid only around half of
the said amount to their overseas suppliers of
Black Pepper in Sri Lanka as per their Bank
accounts Statements. Shri Arshad Shajahan of
M/s Global Metro has confirmed in his statement
that the balance amount to be paid to the
Overseas Supplier would never be paid. The
content of statement was corroborated by the
documents found during investigation.
The above facts have been evidenced by
the analysis of bank statements, email
communications, e-way bills and the informal
accounts maintained by relevant entities.
11. No details of incriminating material have been
furnished that would substantiate the conclusion that the goods
have been inflated in value. As far as the balance of the
consideration remaining to be paid to the overseas supplier, this is
a matter of negotiation between the supplier and the importer and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
would not concern the statutory authorities in the matter of
valuation of the goods. There are also certain statements that
appear to have been recorded in the course of the on-going
investigation. All in all, the apprehensions expressed are, as of
now, just apprehensions, and would have to be supported by
tangible material in order to establish a prima facie case against
the petitioner.
12. I am given to understand by the learned Senior
Standing Counsels for the Customs Department as well as for the
DRI that the process of investigation would take some time and
cannot be hurried.
13. The commodity in question is agricultural produce. The
variety of black pepper imported is stated to be specific to the
region of Srilanka, an important ingredient in the making of
spices used in Indian cuisine, with a short shelf life. Assuming for
the sake of argument that investigation is concluded in favour of
the petitioner, if the provisional release is not granted, the entire
consignments would have been compromised. The balance of
convenience would thus require, in my considered view, that the
consignments be released, subject to the petitioner being put to
terms. This would also ensure that the interests of the Department
are securely protected. The petitioner will remit the entire duty
and furnish bond to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority in
regard to interest payable, penalty or charges that may be deemed
necessary.
14. The impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that
nothing contained in this order will stand in the way of an
independent enquiry by the authorities in the on-going
investigation. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs/R3 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
directed to quantify the duty and bond amounts and communicate
the same to the petitioner forthwith and release the goods within a
week of such remittance by the petitioner.
15. On the issue of waiver of demurrage charges, the issue
is left open to be pursued before the authorities in the light of
applicable Rules and Regulations.
16. This Writ Petition is disposed as above. No costs.
Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.'
12. The sequitur is, the prayer in the captioned writ petition
deserves to be acceded to by respectfully following the ratio of Hon'ble
Division Bench in Al Qahir International case. Therefore, the captioned
main writ petition and connected W.M.P are disposed of with the
following directives and observations:
(a) The second respondent i.e., the Joint
Commissioner of Customs is directed to quantify the
duty, bond amounts etc., communicate the same to the
petitioner forthwith and release the said consignment
within one week of said remittance i.e., quantified
duty/bond amounts/execution of bonds by the
petitioner;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
(b) It is made clear that nothing contained in
this order will stand in the way of an independent
inquiry by the authorities in the ongoing investigation.
In other words, show cause notice adjudication can
proceed and the same can be carried to its logical end
on its own merits and in accordance with law
uninfluenced/untrammelled by any view or opinion
expressed by this Court. Though obvious, I make it
clear that I have not expressed any view or opinion on
the merits of the matter qua allegations of which the
said consignment has been seized;
(c) On the issue of waiver of demurrer charges,
the issue is left open to be pursued by the authorities in
the light of applicable rules and regulations.
There shall be no order as to costs.
12.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
To
1. The Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (SIIB),
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004.
4. The Superintendent of Customs.
Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB),
Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin – 628 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
M.SUNDAR., J.
pkn
W.P.(MD)No.22788 of 2021
12.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
