UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANJU GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent herein had imported Compact Fluorescent Lamps from M/s. Ceyenergy Electronics Company (Pvt.) Limited, Sri Lanka. She claimed the benefit of Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) which has been entered into between the two countries. As per this trade agreement, free trade is allowed in respect of certain items, which include the goods in question as well. The customs authorities, however, nurtured a doubt as to whether the origin of the aforesaid goods was Sri Lanka, as according to them, it was possible that these goods were manufactured in China and had been imported to India via Sri Lankan route. For this purpose, the consignment was detained and Deputy Commissioner, Customs, issued notice to the Respondent asking her to supply certain information. When this process was still on and a final view had yet to be taken by the customs authorities, the Respondent filed the writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with certain prayers which included prayer for releasing of the goods as well. In the said writ petition notice was issued by the High Court to the Appellants herein and they were given few opportunities to place on record the documents which could prove their claim to the effect that the goods in question had Chinese origin. It appears that after taking few adjournments, the Appellants filed the additional counter affidavit in the High Court and in this additional affidavit they enclosed a communication from Sri Lankan authorities stating that the goods were originated from China. It was disputed by the Respondent.

(2.) The High Court, after hearing the matter, disposed of the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 2-3-2005 directing the Appellants to release the goods on provisional basis on the condition that the Respondent herein would deposit the amount of customs duty and would also furnish a bank guarantee of 20 percent of the value of the goods in question and for the balance value of the goods, she would furnish a personal bond to the satisfaction of the concerned authority in the Customs Department. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

(3.) It is this judgment which is the subject matter of the present appeal. It is clear from the aforesaid direction that the Respondent was allowed to get the goods released on provisional basis with certain conditions. We are informed that after the passing of this aforesaid direction by the High Court, the Respondent had even got the goods released after complying with the directions of the High Court. In these circumstances, nothing survives in the present appeal. Otherwise also, there is no reason to interfere with the order in question, when the arrangement made by the High Court in the said order was only provisional one by way of interim arrangement.