2009 (1) TMI 292 - HC - Customs

Retention of the goods - the petitioners did not get the goods or the price thereof which were retained by the authorities - Held that - The department has also wrote a letter to the petitioners to the effect that they shall comply with the order already passed by the court. It was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that after writing such letter, the authorities cannot turn around and question the order so passed by the Trial court. In view of that, it appears to us that the Court was conscious about the authority of the court for adjudication of the damages suffered by the petitioners by an appropriate forum. In our considered opinion, we do not find that there is any illegality or irregularity in respect of the order so passed by the Trial Court. The order suffers from no irregularity or illegality on the contrary the court held that it cannot decide damages so suffered by the writ petitioners for illegal retention of the goods in question by them. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, This appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed.

Summary

The High Court at Calcutta, in the citation 2009 (1) TMI 292, heard a case involving the import of 400 sets of UPS Systems from Taiwan. The petitioners faced issues with customs authorities at Kolkata Port who alleged under valuation of the goods. A writ petition was filed, and after a series of legal proceedings, the petitioners became entitled to 50% of the goods. However, due to the authorities selling the goods, the court could not return them. The court suggested that the price of the goods needs to be determined by an appropriate forum. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that it could not decide on damages suffered by the petitioners due to the illegal retention of goods. The court found no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. All parties were instructed to act on a xerox signed copy of the order. The urgent xerox certified copy of the order would be supplied to the parties upon compliance. The judgment was passed by Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Sankar Prasad Mitra, JJ. of the High Court at Calcutta.