9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for unusually long time on the ground that the same were undervalued. The petitioner represented before the Dy. Commissioner of Customs vide representation dated 21-7-2004 and 11-8-2004. The Customs Department also alleged that petitioner had misled the department as to nature and description of the goods. The goods of the petitioner were confiscated and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner. 2. The Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 17-8-2004 asked for payment of differential duty and penalty besides offering an option for release of the goods. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal and ordered the unconditional release of the goods as prayed for. 3. The Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es paying a sum of Rs. 7 lacs towards demurrage because of the delay so caused. 4. In the meantime, the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs was dismissed by the Tribunal on 7-2-2005 [2005 (184) E.L.T. 65 (Tri.-Del.)]. It is averred that the petitioner is facing financial stringency. The petitioner borrowed the money on interest and appropriated towards import in question and it has incurred interest thereon. It is prayed that the goods be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner without payment of damages, demurrage and detention charges, which are actually to be paid by the respondents. The goods of the petitioner were illegally detained. The goods were kept detained despite the order passed by the Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s v. Nagavedu Lungi and Co. and Others, 1995 (80) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) = 1995 (3) S.C. Cases 730; (ii) Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. C.L. Jain Woollen Mills and Others, 2001 (5) S.C. Cases 345; and (iii) Union of India and Others v. R.C. Fabrics (P) Ltd. and Another, 2002 (139) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) = 2002 (1) S.C. Cases 718. 7. However, in Union of India v. Sanjeev Woollen Mills - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 323 (S.C) = 1998 (9) SCC 647 the facts were be bit different. The Customs Department had itself made a statement before the High Court that in case after inspection the goods are found to be synthetic waste, the entire demurrage and container charges would be borne by the Customs Department and Customs Department would issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case the customs authorities still insisted that the goods were illegally imported. It sought to justify its stand even before this Court. This Court is not only a court of law but also a court of equity. In a situation of this nature we are of the opinion that this court may find that in place of the importer or the consignee, the customs authorities should bear the charges. Once it is held that the petitioner herein has not committed any illegality in importing the goods in question, in our opinion, it cannot ordinarily be saddled with the liability of payment of demurrage. The petitioner in the fact situation of this case must be held to have been sinned against than sinning." It was further held : "We, therefore, are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Apex Court which are pending therein, the goods in question ought be released in favour of the petitioner on the following conditions :- (i) The petitioner deposits Rs. 50,000/- towards demurrage, with the Customs Department, which would be subject to refund if the present writ petition is allowed and the liability towards demurrage quashed. (ii) The petitioner furnishes property security against the remaining amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court. (iii) The petitioner files an undertaking before this Court to the effect that in case the present writ petition is eventually dismissed, he would pay the balance amount held payable to the respondents. (iv) CM Nos. 2651 and 9772 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
