2010 (5) TMI 489 - HC - Customs

Delay in payment of redemption fine Delay of more than 30 days - petitioner had deposited the demand drafts dated 19-12-2009, Order-in-original dated 26-11-2009, hence the period of thirty days from the date of the order expire on 27-12-2009 - 27th and 28th December 2009 were holidays, TR-6 challans and thereafter deposited the demand draft with the Bank on the very next day - circumstances, cannot stated that there was non-compliance of the order dated 26th November 2009 Goods directed to be released - Department shall forthwith allow the petitioner to clear the consignment of cut and polished diamonds in terms of the Order-in-Original dated 26th November 2009.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or similar relief to clear the consignment of diamonds.
2. Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act regarding the redemption of goods.
3. Compliance with the Order-in-Original dated 26th November 2009 and the justification for denying redemption of goods.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief through a Writ of Mandamus to clear a consignment of diamonds imported under a specific Bill of Entry. The Commissioner of Customs re-determined the value of the diamonds, imposed penalties, and ordered confiscation. The petitioner made payments under protest and requested the release of the goods. Despite appeals and communications, the goods were not released, leading to the present petition.

2. The petitioner argued that Section 125 of the Customs Act does not specify a time limit for redeeming goods. They deposited demand drafts within a reasonable time after the Order-in-Original, citing holidays as a reason for the slight delay. The respondents contended that the delay in paying the redemption fine within 30 days barred redemption, equating condonation with a review of the order.

3. The Court found that the petitioner complied with the Order-in-Original by depositing the demand drafts promptly after the holidays, ensuring the availability of funds for redemption. The Court applied Section 10 of the General Clauses Act to extend the stipulated time until the next working day, thereby justifying the redemption of the goods. The respondents' denial of redemption based on non-compliance was deemed unjustified.

4. The judgment concluded by allowing the petition, quashing the impugned letter, and directing the immediate clearance of the consignment in accordance with the Order-in-Original. The Court refrained from delving into the broader issue of imposing a time limit for redemption under Section 125, given the specific circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal arguments, factual background, and the Court's reasoning leading to the judgment, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.