VIRAL COPIER SERVICES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. The learned advocate Smt. Sridevi reiterates the grounds taken by the Appellants before the authorities below. She also inter alia cites the following decisions in support of the grounds taken on behalf of the Appellants:

(2.) THE impugned imports were made through Chennai Port by the Appellants who are traders based in Ahmedabad from a trading company in Singapore. The brief facts of the case as stated by the Appellants are as follows:

(3.) THE Appellants through their letter dated 19.6.2003 submitted to the original lower authority that they do not agree with the findings of the Chartered Engineer and their valuation. It was submitted that the report given by the Chartered Engineers is biased. It was stated that the engineers have failed to take into account the correct number of pieces imported at the first instance. They also filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras seeking release of the goods pending further investigation by the authorities. In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras passed final orders on 18.7.2003 in W.P. No. 15510, 15516, 16015 and 16016 and W.P.M.P. Nos. 19474, 19484, 20076 and 20077 of 2003 directing the Appellants to obtain another report from M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd., Mumbai and submit the same to the original lower authority within a period of one week. It was also directed that on receipt of the report, the original lower authority are at liberty to issue a show cause notice and decide the case in accordance with law. The High Court also directed the original lower authority to decide the issue within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of the report by the second Chartered Engineer.