2011 (5) TMI 910 - SC - Customs

Modification of impugned order - Confiscation - Misdeclaration - it was submitted that Supplementary Vegetable Tanning Agents, are allowed to be imported on actual user condition and that the petitioner not being an actual user, is even otherwise not entitled to import the said goods under the DFIA Schenne.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for vacation and/or modification of the order dated 27.4.2011.
2. Petitioner filed SLP against the judgment and order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the Gujarat High Court.
3. Respondent seeking modification and/or vacation of the order dated 27.4.2011.
4. Respondent willing to pay the entire amount of customs duty demanded.
5. Conditions imposed for releasing the goods in question.
6. Direction for deposit of customs duty under protest and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent.
7. Disposal of the application.
8. Listing of the main petition for consideration in the second week of July 2011.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed an application for vacation and/or modification of the order dated 27.4.2011. The respondent sought relief from the order, which was related to a judgment and order passed by the Gujarat High Court on 29.3.2011. The Court heard arguments from both parties regarding this application.

2. The petitioner, Union of India, had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court dated 29.3.2011. The Supreme Court had issued a notice on the SLP and had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 29.3.2011 until the next date.

3. The respondent, after being served with the notice, entered appearance and requested modification and/or vacation of the order dated 27.4.2011. The respondent argued that in similar cases, the petitioner had already secured release on payment of 25% of the customs duty.

4. Despite the respondent's argument, the Court was not convinced and the respondent expressed willingness to pay the entire amount of customs duty demanded. The Court accepted this offer, subject to certain conditions, including making the deposit without prejudice to the respondent's rights and contentions.

5. The Court directed that the goods in question would be released in favor of the respondent upon the deposit of the customs duty as demanded and the signing of all relevant bonds as required by law. This decision was made with the understanding that the deposit would be made under protest.

6. It was emphasized that the deposit of customs duty should be made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent in any future legal proceedings that the respondent might wish to contest. This provision was crucial in safeguarding the respondent's legal position.

7. Consequently, the Court disposed of the application based on the resolution reached regarding the payment of customs duty and the release of the goods in question. The matter was considered settled in terms of the Court's directives.

8. The judgment concluded by scheduling the main petition for consideration in the second week of July 2011, indicating that further legal proceedings on the main issue would take place at that time.