2012 (9) TMI 115 - HC - Customs

Non release of goods - the value of the goods shown by the petitioner could not be accepted - Held that - Directions for provisional release of the imported goods on the payment of the entire duty payable as per its declared value, and on the deposit of 30% of the differential duty, based on the value of the goods, as as per the show cause notice and shall execute a personal bond for the balance 70% of the differential duty - the authorities concerned shall adjudicate the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, without any undue delay.

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of Stone Cutting Tools from China
2. Allegations of incorrect valuation by authorities
3. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
4. Counter affidavit denying allegations
5. Investigation by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
6. Show cause notice for proper assessment of goods
7. Precedents for provisional release of imported goods

Analysis:

The petitioner had imported 1610 kilograms of Stone Cutting Tools (Unbranded) from China, but the authorities did not release the goods despite correct quantity and description. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that similar goods imported by others were cleared based on declared values. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents denying the allegations and stating that a notice had been issued for correct valuation. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted an investigation into Carbide Tips and issued a show cause notice due to discrepancies in the value declared by the petitioner compared to prevailing prices.

The petitioner's counsel argued that previous cases had led to provisional release of goods upon payment of entire duty and deposit of 30% of the differential duty. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the court directed the respondents to release the goods upon payment of entire duty as per declared value and depositing 30% of the differential duty. The petitioner was required to execute a personal bond for the remaining 70% of the differential duty. The authorities were instructed to adjudicate the matter promptly and the petitioner was asked to cooperate in the enquiry. The writ petition was granted without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.