2016 (6) TMI 953 - HC - Customs

Request for release of goods - valuation - import of Black Wire Rice Light from China - After the payment of duty, the petitioner was informed by the respondents that the goods have to be examined by the Investigating Agencies due to an unanimous letter received with regard to declaration of the goods. Thereafter, the SIIB Officers along with other Investigating Agencies Officers wanted to examine the goods and the container was opened and de-stuffed fully and examined more than twice by damaging all the cartons and found nothing more than what was declared by the petitioner with regard to quantity and description. Held that - the goods detained by the respondents can be released to the petitioner on payment of differential duty of ₹ 6,73,803/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioner to challenge the levy of differential duty and also the release of the goods before the second respondent in accordance with law. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I give liberty to the petitioner to challenge the differential duty levied by the respondents and also give liberty to the petitioner to challenge the detention of goods by the respondents in accordance with law. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of imported goods
2. Assessment of duty amount
3. Examination of goods
4. Differential duty payable
5. Adjudication process

Release of imported goods:
The petitioner imported goods from China and requested clearance from the respondents. The goods were assessed by the Proper Officer, and duty was paid. However, the goods were detained for examination by Investigating Agencies due to an anonymous letter. After examination, the petitioner requested release of the goods, which were assessed and duty paid. As there was no response, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the release of the goods.

Assessment of duty amount:
The respondents contended that there was a differential duty of &8377; 6,73,803 payable by the petitioner. During examination, discrepancies were found in the number of bulbs in the lights as declared in the Bill of Entry. The quantity of goods matched the declaration, but the number of bulbs per light differed from the declaration.

Examination of goods:
The examination of goods revealed discrepancies in the number of bulbs per light compared to the declaration in the Bill of Entry. Despite this, the quantity of goods matched the declaration. The examination was conducted by SIIB officers and Customs House officials in Chennai.

Differential duty payable:
The respondents insisted that the petitioner was liable to pay the differential duty of &8377; 6,73,803. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested the release of goods upon payment of the said duty.

Adjudication process:
After considering the submissions from both parties, the judge directed the release of the goods to the petitioner on payment of the differential duty. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the levy of the duty and the detention of goods before the second respondent in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of without any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.