SAJEEV MATHEW Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner was aggrieved with Exhibit P10 conditional order passed for provisional release of goods imported by the appellant. The learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the conditions and directed expeditious consideration of the adjudication within a period of two months. The appellant, aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, is before us in appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in a similar matter on an earlier instance when an import of similar goods was made of identical value, declared by his own brother, the Commissioner had directed provisional release of the goods on payment of duty as per the declared value and executing a bond for Rs. 2 lakhs and there is no reason why the appellant should be discriminated.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is precisely because of earlier a similar consignment having been imported undervaluing the goods in the invoice, that a more stringent condition was imposed, especially noticing the habitual manner in which the goods were imported. In fact, it is the allegation of the Department that the appellant had imported the goods in his name only to avoid detection if the import is made by the brother himself.