9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, for the release of the goods in question. - Writ Petition No.13048 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2012 - MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN, J. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Viswanathan For Respondents : M/s.Rajnish Pathiyil O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had imported CARLVO Dual Sim Chinese Cellular Phones, under Bill of Entry No.5256566, dated 22.11.2011. The petitioner has been issued with the importer and exporter code, bearing No.0909021937, by the office of the Zonal Joint Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had declared t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs.2550/-. As such the petitioner has mis-delcared the retail selling price of the goods imported through the Chennai Sea Port, with the mala fide intention of evading payment of the actual Customs Duty. Therefore, the goods in question had been detained by the customs authorities concerned. Therefore, a show cause notice, dated 4.4.2012, had been issued to the petitioner, by the first respondent. Instead of filing its reply to the show cause notice, dated 4.4.2012, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the provisional release of the goods in question. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. M/s.Blumax Impex (India) P. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (W.P.Nos.11588 and 11590 of 2012, dated 25.6.2012) 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the goods in question had been detained due to the mis-declaration of the retail selling price of the goods, by the petitioner. Therefore, a show cause notice, dated 4.4.2012, had been issued, by the first respondent. While so, it would not be appropriate for the authorities concerned to entertain the request of the petitioner for the provisional release of the goods in question. 9. The learned counsel had further submitted that the petitioner had undertaken to comply with certain conditions, as mentioned in the letter, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
