1996 (8) TMI 114 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Request for clearance of consigned goods, interpretation of previous court orders, delay in release of goods by Customs Authorities, application for modification and recall of previous orders, condonation of delay in filing application, release of goods from bonded warehouse.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner sought direction for the release of 18.75 Metric Tonnes of goods from a bonded warehouse in West Bengal. The petitioner had entered into an agreement in 1986 to purchase stainless steel Mother Tubes from a UK-based company. Customs Authorities had initially refused to release the goods due to valuation issues. However, previous court orders directed the release of similar goods imported under the same contract. The petitioner moved the current writ petition in 1995 seeking enforcement of the earlier orders for the release of the consigned goods.

The Customs Authorities argued that the goods had been in the bonded warehouse since 1987 and suggested initiating adjudication proceedings against the petitioner. The court noted that similar goods had been released previously based on the orders of the learned Single Judge. The court found no reason not to pass a similar order for the current consignment. The Customs Authorities' application for modification and recall of previous orders was deemed misconceived as it was filed after a significant delay and lacked sufficient cause for condonation.

The court cited a case to emphasize the importance of showing sufficient cause for delay in filing applications. It noted that the Customs Authorities' application appeared to be filed only when the writ petition was being heard, raising doubts about its bona fides. The court found no valid reason for the delay in seeking modification of the previous order and refused to condone the delay. Considering the goods had been unused in the warehouse since 1987 and the past acceptance of similar orders by the Customs Authorities, the court allowed the writ application, directing the release of the consigned goods upon payment of assessed customs duty and other expenses within one month.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ application for the release of the goods from the bonded warehouse, emphasizing adherence to previous court orders and denying the Customs Authorities' application for modification or recall due to lack of sufficient cause for delay. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely and validly motivated legal actions in such matters.