TRANSVIEW ENTERPRISE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition No. 19402/2013 mainly assails the communication dated 25.03.2013 intimating the conditions for the provisional release for the goods imported by the petitioner by Bill of Entry No. 8746111 dated 12.12.2012 (Annexure -A It is the contention of the petitioner that the conditions prescribed for the provisional release for goods are harsh and burdensome and not in accordance with law. Writ petition No. 32802/2013 is filed by the very same petitioner assailing the order in original dated 09.07.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 -Commissioner of Customs (Seaport -Import), Chennai, a copy of which is produced at Annexure -L.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are: that the petitioner had imported "Amezcua Chi Pendant" said to be artificial jewellery from its supplier M/s. QNET Ltd., Hong Kong. Value of the goods was declared to be Rs. 4,47,45,092/ - by the petitioner. Self assessment was made and system appraisal through Risk Management System and the petitioner paid duty of Rs. 97,46,340/ - on 14.12.2012. The Bill of Entry was taken up for investigation by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) on information that the goods were misclassified and under valued. The goods were examined on 27.12.2012 at the warehouse, Customs Freight Station. It was found that the goods were 'Glass Pendant' and not artificial jewellery as stated in the Bill of Entry. It was also stated that they were "Made in Germany" and its country of origin was not Malaysia as stated by the petitioner. The respondent -Department found that the classification was improperly made by the petitioner and that a higher rate of customs duty was applicable to the goods. On further investigation, the Department found that price of the goods were under valued by the importer and that there were several other deficiencies in the import.

(3.) UNDER these circumstances, goods were seized by mahazar drawn on 11.01.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner sought release of the goods by its letter dated 01.02.2013. In the meanwhile, WP No. 19402/2013 had been preferred before this Court. Since the case required adjudication on the aforesaid aspects, the second respondent passed an Order under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 extending the detention of the goods by further period of six months upto 10.01.2014. That Order is challenged in WP No. 32802/2013.