2018 (9) TMI 518 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - calling of records - refund of excess amount paid - Held that - If the petitioner pays the duty in accordance with the declared valuation, the goods shall be released to the petitioner on the petitioner executing a bank guarantee for the balance duty under dispute - So far as refund is concerned, the respondents shall take into account the grievance highlighted by the petitioner with respect to issuance of an order under Section 17(5) enabling the petitioner to file appeal, taking into account whether the duty was paid by the petitioner under protest or otherwise. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought through writ petition for import of goods against specific Bills of Entry.
2. Allegations of unnecessary detention of goods and dispute over declared value.
3. Failure to issue appealable order against previous import leading to litigation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief in the form of a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ to call for records related to two Bills of Entry (B/E) - one dated 17-11-2017 and the other dated 11-4-2018. The petitioner also requested a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to release goods imported against the latter B/E and refund any excess amount collected for the former B/E.

2. The petitioner imported PVC roll mats and carpets, declaring their value accurately. Despite this, the respondent refused to accept the declared value and demanded a loaded value. The goods were examined, found to match the declaration, but were still detained. In a previous import, the petitioner faced a similar issue where the respondent insisted on a loaded value, leading to a decision to pay customs duty as demanded to avoid further delays. However, the respondent failed to issue an appealable order, causing the petitioner to challenge the assessment through litigation.

3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit denying the petitioner's claims. The court acknowledged the grievances raised by the petitioner and proposed a resolution. The court suggested that if the petitioner pays duty according to the declared value, the goods would be released upon executing a bank guarantee for the disputed amount. Regarding the previous import, the court directed the respondents to issue an order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act promptly, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal. The court mandated a decision within a month from the judgment date to resolve the issues raised.

4. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, providing a practical solution to the disputes raised by the petitioner, emphasizing compliance with declared valuation for future imports and prompt issuance of appealable orders to avoid unnecessary litigation and delays in the customs clearance process.