9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order insofar as is irrelevant reads as follows : "This application is being moved upon notice to the respondents. The respondent authorities state that they are willing to provisionally assess the goods by 15-10-1994 and to release the goods on the basis of such provisional assessment in terms of the order of the Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition No. 210 of 1993 (Shri Pravin E. Trivedi v. Union of India Ors.) Accordingly, this application is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to make a provisional assessment by 15-10-1994 and to release the goods within a period of 48 hours upon compliance with the terms of the provisional assessment including execution of a bond and furnishing of such other security as may be directed. If such provisional assessment is not made within the period specified above, then immediately after expiry of the period the goods shall be released upon payment by the petitioner of the Customs Duty on the basis of the valuation in the Bill of Entry and furnishment of a Bond for payment of Duty on a value 50% in excess of the declared value. It will be open to the authority to satisfy themselves that the goods imported are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable with the department. Although a copy of the letter dated 10th October, 1994 was made available to the petitioner's clearing agent, the bills of entry were not returned till several days subsequent so that, according to the petitioner, the clearance could not be made in terms of the order within a period of 48 hours. 7.According to the petitioner the respondents have committed contempt of the order dated 27th September, 1994. There was a direct violation of the order as well as an indirect violation. As far as the direct violation is concerned, the petitioner has said that it is the failure to release the document necessary for obtaining release of the goods within a period of 48 hours was contumacious. As far as the indirect violation is concerned, it is said that the order dated 27th September, 1994 had been passed on the concession made by the Customs Authorities taking into consideration the letter of the Assistant Collector of Customs, quoted above. It is said that the Customs Authorities were, therefore, well aware of the manner in which the order of the Supreme Court was being implemented. It is also stated that on the basis of the Customs Authorities reading of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not been enclosed with the letter addressed to them. There was ample time for the respondents to have checked the documents and instructed their Counsel in the matter. Therefore, I am of the view that the objection raised by the respondents to the reliance by the petitioner on the documents cannot be sustained. 12.The petitioners have finally submitted that the order dated 10th February, 1995 was correctly passed as the respondent authorities were, in fact, continuing to allow import of Koyo Brand Ball Bearing by provisionally assessing them and demanding 20 or 30% payment of cash deposit together with P.D. Bond. The petitioner has also commented on the fact that although the goods had arrived in April last year they had neither been allowed to be kept in a warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act nor was any final assessment made till date nor any show cause notice was issued. 13.The respondents have submitted firstly that there was no contempt as the provisional assessment had been made before the time specified in the order. Copy of the letter dated 10th October, 1994 had been made over to the petitioner's shipping agent and Advocate. It is stated that on 24th October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not, in fact, state anything new over and above what had been stated by the Supreme Court in the Writ Petition No. 210 of 1993 (Shri Pravin F. Trivedi v. Union of India Ors.). The order was passed on the basis of the concession made by the respondents and the paragraph subsequent to the recording of such concession merely sought to exactly follow the order of the Supreme Court. It is apparent from the use of the word, `Accordingly.' 18.Reliance on the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963 by the respondents, in my view, does not assist the respondents. Clauses 2 and 4 which have been cited by the respondents in respect of their contention that they could ask for 100% security by way of Bank Guarantee read as follows :- "2. Conditions for allowing provisional assessment - Where the proper officer on account of any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), is not able to make a final assessment of the duty on the imported goods or the export goods, as the case may be, he shall make an estimate of the duty that is most likely to be levied hereinafter referred to as the provisional duty. If the importer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
