9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmission of reports, which was a major factor for causing delay in settlement of the dispute. Therefore, no further directions are required to be issued – Samples analyzed and test reports submitted in one month as per revenue’s submission – HC is satisfied with steps taken to reduce period of testing of samples - 18956 of 2006 (O & M) - - - Dated:- 9-10-2009 - T.S. Thakur, CJ., and Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Civil Writ Petition No. 18956 of 2006 (O M) and 1 of 2007 with Civil Misc Nos. 12623-12624 and 6015-6016 of 2009 Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia J.]. - Civil Misc. No. 12623 of 2009 - The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Civil Misc. No. 12624 of 2009 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and status report in the form of affidavit taken on record. Civil Misc. No. 6015 of 2009 3. The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Civil Misc. No. 6016 of 2009 4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and status report in the form of affidavit taken on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers, the value declared in the bills of entry was 170 dollars per MT. Whereas, qua 3 containers of mixed fatty acid, the value declared was 210 dollars per MT. Despite various visits of agent of the petitioner for release of the goods, the same were not released and petitioner has averred that on 15th November, 2006, he was orally informed that clearance of goods can only be permitted by the Department in case he agrees to pay the duty, taking the assessable value as 340 US dollars per MT. According to the petitioner, bills of entry were filed on 13th October, 2006, 28th October, 2006, 3rd November, 2006 and 6th November, 2006 respectively. The petitioner has further stated that non-release of 32 articles has fastened him with charges of Rs. 2.00 lakh per day towards detention and demurrage. According to the petitioner, to avoid this cost towards demurrage, he agreed to pay the duty on higher rate of value and in compliance with the oral demand of the Department, petitioner had addressed a letter (Annexure P-1). It will apposite here to reproduce the contents of the letter addressed by the petitioner to the Additional Director (DRI), Headquarter, New Delhi: "This is to inform you ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect assessable value, the dispute being purely of valuation, the imported material should not be detained simply on valuation or classification disputes. 11. In response to the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been submitted by the Assistant Director General, DRI, New Delhi, in which he raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It has been stated that the goods were imported at Delhi, bills of entry were filed at Delhi and clearance of goods was also sought at Delhi and simply because office of the petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court cannot assume territorial jurisdiction. It has further been submitted that the Department of Revenue Intelligence, on a definite information, is investigating into the scam by nine firms, which indulge in import of Palm Stearin and Crude Palm Oil in the guise of mixed acid oil/mixed fatty oil, which are not freely importable. It is stated that apart from the mis-declaration in description as per the preliminary estimates of the Department, there is evasion of duty amounting to Rs. 30-40 crores on the part of the firms, whose conduct is bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional Director General, DRI, New Delhi demanding customs duty amounting to Rs. 20,41,899/- along with confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. 15. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal appearing for the petitioner, has urged that there was no justification with the respondent to detain the imported goods from 13th October, 2006 to 2nd December, 2006. Once the bills of entry were submitted, immediately goods were to be examined and tested, and due to inaction on the part of the respondents, petitioner has been saddled with demurrage charges, which amounts to Rs. 2.00 lakh per day, therefore this Court should order that the demurrage charges be reimbursed to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the samples sent by the Department were not tested by the concerned laboratory at the earliest and therefore, delay has occurred and the petitioner should be compensated. 16. Mr. Kamal Sehgal appearing for the Department of Revenue Intelligence has urged that a definite information was received from the intelligence sources that the petitioner was importing Palm Stearin and Crude Palm Oil and import of these items was banned. Learned counsel has further urged that this information was, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision is to be evolved so that the goods detained do not deteriorate in value and the importer is not made to pay heavy demurrage charges. On 13th December, 2006, Ms. Parveen Mahajan, Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi appeared and this Court recorded the following order: ".........It remains undisputed that in the present case the samples taken on 31-10-2006 have still not been tested, though a period of about 7 weeks has gone by and it is expected to take two weeks further time. Once there is jurisdiction to seize goods on any suspicion, there is a corresponding obligation to take quick decision. Exercise of power of seizure of any goods in the absence of a quick decision, without any responsibility is prima facie not permissible in view of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Ms. Mahajan submitted that there being only two Laboratories available for conducting the tests, the delay is inevitable. She assured the Court that decision to streamline the working on this aspect will be quickly taken within a week and reported to this Court on the next date of hearing........." 22. On 21st December, 2006, this Court was assured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month, and even in case of some samples, after testing, the report is submitted within 15 days. There is a marked improvement in testing and disposal of samples. In the affidavit dated 27th July, 2009, it was submitted that Technical Evaluation Committee had recommended acceptance of bids for three items and administrative approval is awaited. This status report also give details regarding recruitment and promotion of the staff required for running the laboratories. 23. We are satisfied that the Department has taken active steps to reduce the period of testing of the samples and submission of reports, which was a major factor for causing delay in settlement of the dispute. Therefore, no further directions are required to be issued. 24. As stated earlier, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to the costs. Civil Writ Petition No. 1 of 2007 25. This petition was filed on 2nd January, 2007 for release of 32 containers, description of which has been given in Civil Writ Petition No. 18956 of 2006. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the facts and law noticed in that writ petition and the decision thereof shall also resolve the controversy raised in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
