SHUBHAM ENTERPRISES Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an importer, has filed this petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ, order or direction requiring therespondents to produce its records relating to order dated 16/06/1994 of theAdditional Collector of Customs, New Delhi, whereby he dropped the show causenotice dated 16 February, 1993 issued to the petitioner earlier under the provisionsof the Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice was issued to the petitionerrequiring him to show cause as to why FOB and CIF value of the goods as declaredin the Bill of Entry No. 240554 dated 7 August, 1992 for components and parts ofphotocopier machines be not enhanced and duty charged accordingly and why thegoods be not confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Thepetitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order ordirection requiring the respondents to permit the clearance of the aforesaid goodsto the petitioner without payment of any demurrage charges to the third respondent, the International Airport Authority of India (IAAI). A prayer is also sought,in the alternative, that respondents 1 and 2 be also directed to issue detentioncertificate for the period from 6 August, 1992 till date as adjudication proceedingshad been dropped.

(2.) We issued notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued in thematter and at that time we recorded the submission of the Counsel for the petitionerthat ough the show cause notice had been dropped the department had filed anappeal under the Customs Act which was pending before the Collector of Customs(Appeals), New Delhi, but the Appellate Authority had not granted any stay andthat there was no reason why the goods should not have been released. The basiccontention, however, was that the goods should not only have been released butreleased without payment of any demurrage charges to the third respondent.

(3.) In its answer to show cause notice, the third respondent opposed the prayerthat it should not charge any demurrage charges. The petitioner pleaded that sincethe goods had been detained by the Customs Authorities and after the adjudicationproceedings had been dropped it was apparent that detention was not legal andwould be termed as 'without any authority'.