9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Application for interim relief regarding the release of imported goods seized by respondents. - Failure of respondents to appear or file an affidavit in opposition. - Petitioner's claim of valid importation under Open General Licence. - Petitioner's payment of Customs Duty and interest. - Court's decision to grant relief and conditions for release of goods. - Liability of petitioner to pay customs duty subject to final outcome of writ application. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application for interim relief filed by the petitioner regarding the release of imported goods seized by respondents 1 to 4. Despite being called upon to file an affidavit in opposition, the respondents failed to appear or contest the application. The petitioner claimed to have imported 25 M.T. of Glycerine from Bangladesh under an Open General Licence, stating that the importation was lawful. The goods were seized by the respondents and kept in a Bonded Warehouse, leading the petitioner to pay Customs Duty and interest. The Court noted the absence of any legal reason for detaining the goods and observed that similar goods imported by others had been released by the Customs Department. As the respondents did not contest the application, the Court found that the petitioner had established a prima facie case for the release of the goods. The Court granted the application, directing the release of the goods under certain conditions. These conditions included the petitioner paying Warehousing charges, the goods being released within a week of payment, and allowing assistance from local police if needed due to possible resistance during the release process. Additionally, the respondents were instructed to draw samples from the goods for testing at the National Test House to determine conformity with import documents and quality. Failure to draw samples would not prevent the release of goods but could lead to appropriate inferences by the Court later in the proceedings. The liability of the petitioner to pay customs duty at a specific rate for the goods' release was also made subject to the final outcome of the writ application. The judgment concluded by granting liberty to mention and directing all parties to act on a xerox signed copy of the order. The detailed analysis highlights the Court's consideration of the petitioner's claims, the lack of opposition from the respondents, and the conditions imposed for the release of the seized goods, emphasizing the importance of following the legal process and ensuring fairness in the resolution of the dispute.
|
