9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - i) The petitioner shall deposit with the custom authorities the duty payable on the value declared by them - ii) The petitioner shall deposit with the customs authorities 50% of the differential duty - iii) The investigation is yet to be completed and the adjudication has also to be done. Therefore, it is needless to state that this order shall not stand in the way of the respondents to proceed with the investigation and also the adjudication process - The petitioner shall co-operate with the respondents for conclusion of the investigation as well as the adjudication proceedings - The Writ Petition is disposed of. - W.P.No.3135 of 2013 and M. P. No. 1 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2013 - V. Dhanapalan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Jayaraj For the Respondents : Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan, CGSC ,Mr.Velayutham Pichaya, SCGSC ORDER Heard Mr. A. K. Jayaraj learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Velayutham Pichaya, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , who took statement from the petitioner and they had also furnished Sales Contract made with the supplier for import of the above goods. The DRI officers thereafter, issued another summons to appear before them, for which the petitioner had asked for time. (d) The DRI Officers classified the goods viz., Coated Gummed Paper under Custom Tariff Heading 48114100 which are freely importable and Coated Gummed Paper is one type of self-adhesive paper and these papers are used for creating label products. The self-adhesive paper as alleged by the Department is one and the same to that of the Coated Gummed Paper, which is also classifiable under CTH 48114100. Hence, the allegation of the third respondent that the value declared is less and the petitioner had mis-declared the goods and imported self-adhesive paper is not correct. The petitioner undertakes that they have fully co-operated in the investigation and will continue to do so. The continued seizure of goods is causing acute financial hardship, as the goods are incurring demurrage, interest on borrowed capital, besides deterioration in quality of Coated Gummed Paper, which is of perishable nature. The action of the respondents in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orters and mis-declared the description as "coated gummed sheets" as against the international nomenclature of "self-adhesive sheets". The petitioner was evasive in their statements. Provisions of Section 110-A of the Act are applicable in respect of cases where seized goods can be released on bond with such security and other conditions as the adjudicating authority may require. The petitioner has attempted to tamper with the evidence by way of removing hard disk and not providing any mail/correspondence with the supplier. In terms of Section 110(2) read with Section 124 of the Act, the respondents have a time-limit of six months for issue of show cause notice, failing which, the goods are to be returned to the petitioner. The investigations conducted so far prima-facie has revealed that the declared value is liable for rejection because of under-invoicing and unrealistic price declaration and the petitioner evaded payment of appropriate duties of customs due to mis-declaration of value. The price declared is ridiculously low and the actual price is three to four times the declared price. Once the declared value is rejected, as per the Act, the determination of the value of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 of the Act may be provisionally released pending adjudication. However, till date no reply has been received from the DRI Officers. The petitioner's premises were searched by the DRI Officers and nothing incriminating was found. The DRI had issued summons on the partner of the petitioner and they appeared before the Officers and the above officers had taken statement from the petitioner and they had also furnished Sales Contract made with the supplier for import of the above goods. The DRI officers thereafter issued another summons to appear before them, for which the petitioner had asked for time. The DRI Officers had classified the goods viz., Coated Gummed Paper under Custom Tariff Heading 48114100 which are freely importable and Coated Gummed Paper is one type of self-adhesive paper and these papers are used for creating label products. The self-adhesive paper as alleged by the Department is one and the same to that of Coated Gummed Paper, which is also classifiable under CTH 48114100. Hence, it is the claim of the petitioner that the allegation of the third respondent that the value declared is less and the petitioner had mis-declared the goods and imported self-adhesive pap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication proceedings pending before him as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In terms of the aforesaid order, the appeal stands disposed of. We, however, make it clear that while passing the aforesaid order, we have not expressed any opinion or views on the merits of the dispute which shall be independently considered by the competent authority." 11. Similarly, in the very same recent ruling of the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.582 of 2011, dated 01.04.2011, the Division Bench took a view, while modifying the order of the learned single Judge, by directing the respondent therein instead of depositing entire customs duty and the redemption fine, the respondent shall deposit 50% duty of the value of the goods and on such deposit being made, the goods shall be released forthwith in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the case of petitioner in the present case also stands on the same footing and their claim for provisional release of goods shall be considered along with a reasonable condition. 12. Refuting the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents, on investigation, found that the differential duty has to be paid even for the provisional release of the goods. The investigation has to be completed and thereafter, the adjudication has to be done for the assessment of the value. Since the goods are perishable in nature, the petitioner claims for provisional release of the goods in question. 16. In the light of the above stated legal position and as the goods in question are not prohibitory items under the provisions of the Act and having regard to the foregoing reasons and discussions and considering the circumstances of the case, provisional release of the goods in question, is ordered with the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall deposit with the custom authorities the duty payable on the value declared by them i.e. USD 3 per packet. ii) The petitioner shall deposit with the customs authorities 50% of the differential duty i.e., the difference between the value declared by them and the value provisionally assessed by the Department in the light of the decision of the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.582 of 2011, dated 01.04.2011 and for the balance 50% of the differential duty, the petitioner sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
