9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, in course of business imported three consignments from M/s. International Trading Company Limited of which details are given in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the first consignment was of wooden strip and wooden beading, stuffed in container no. 00LUB132654 of the transaction value of US $11,117. On receipt of Invoice No. AST090410 dated 5th January, 2011, Packing List and Bill of Lading, the petitioner filed Bill of Entry No. 2845686 dated 24th February, 2011 under Section 46 of the Customs Act, for clearance of the said goods. 4. According to the petitioner, the Bill of Entry was duly assessed under Section 17 of the Customs Act and the petitioner was required to pay duty as assessed. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a Panchnama was drawn on the spot by the concerned Officers of the Directorate of Revenue (Intelligence) and/or the Special Intelligence Branch of the Customs, but the copy of the panchnama was not made over to the representative of the Clearing House Agent. 8. According to the petitioner, the third consignment, which was of shoes for gents, shoes for ladies and button cell of the value of US $ 38764.20 was stuffed in container No. TGHU6266720, and a Bill of Lading was issued by the shipper. After receipt of Invoice No. ASTO90409 dated January 5, 2011, Packing List and Bill of Lading, but before the Bill of Entry could be filed for clearance of the consignment, the goods were detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intellegence, upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be detained indefinitely without even passing any seizure order. Mr. V.V. Gautam, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, cited the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Om Udyog v. Union of India, reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 547 (P & H) where the Division Bench in effect held that detention of goods beyond reasonable time could not be allowed, even though there might be justification for verification of goods. In Kundan Rice Mills Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 14 (P & H), also cited by Mr. Gautam, the Division Bench held that there being urgency in release of goods, a party aggrieved by the illegal detention of goods or imposition of harsh terms for release thereof could invoke the writ ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave expired since the arrival of the goods. 14. There can be no doubt that the respondent authorities are entitled to investigate and ascertain whether the price declaration has correctly been made or whether the goods have been undervalued with ulterior motive. However, such investigation would necessarily have to be concluded with utmost expedition. Apparently this has not been done in the instant case. 15. The writ application is, thus, disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to conclude the investigation/proceedings, if any, within three weeks from the date of communication of this order and to release the goods in question. If the investigation/proceedings cannot be concluded for any reason not attributable to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
