9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /20 disposed of by order dated 12-1-2006 with consent of the parties in the following terms: "without going into the controversy involved, our attention was drawn to para 13 of the reply of the respondents wherein it has been stated that after paying differential duty of the consignment which comes to Rs. 8,79,014/- the petitioner may take release of the goods. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petition may be disposed of in the light of the stand of the respondents. He further states that he will advise the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Jodhpur for release of the seized goods. He submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to complete the assessment and determine petitioner's final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty and fine leviable under the Customs Act and the letter dated 13-2-2006 (supra) asking the writ petitioner to submit bond/guarantee is in accordance with the order of this Court. 3. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the controversy in the writ petition related to seizure of Titanium Dioxide which was imported by the writ petitioner as Sodium Sulphate, it is not in dispute that Titanium Dioxide attracts a higher rate of duty than Sodium Sulphate. According to the Department, the mis-description of the goods was with a view to evade duty and the importer i.e. the writ petitioner is liable to pay not only differential duty but also penalty or fine. 4. From perusal of the extracted part of the order of this Court dated 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty for improper importation of goods at the rates mentioned therein, there being a prima facie case of improper import of goods, the writ petitioner cannot escape the imposition of penalty. Thus, we are of the view that in order to protect the revenue, the department is well within its jurisdiction to insist on submission of the bond and bank guarantee. The court in fact had made it clear that r would be provisional and subject to final determination of liability, the writ petitioner cannot claim unconditional release of the goods. No action therefore, can be initiated against the concerned officials for contempt. 6. With these observations, both the misc. application and contempt petition are disposed of. 7. It is clarifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
