HARENDRA MOHANLAL KARIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,97,158/- towards interest at the rate of 12% per annum on a sum of Rs.26,89,186/- for the period between 18.11.2003 till 28.6.2004. The petitioner has also prayed for a further interest at the same rate on such principal claim of interest.

(2.) THE petition arose in the following factual background :

(3.) HAVING thus heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the present case the Customs Authorities bonafidely holding a belief that in terms of section 72 of the Customs Act, the petitioner was required to deposit the customs duty on the goods cleared for export from the bonded warehouse since the same could not be supplied to the foreign going vessel. On such premise the authorities insisted on the petitioner depositing the customs duty. Section 72 as is well known provides for collection of customs duty under certain circumstances including where any goods in respect of which a bond has been executed and which have not been cleared for home consumption or exportation are not duly accounted for to the satisfaction of the proper officer. In the present case the goods were cleared from the warehouse for export. Such goods however, could not be exported because of dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.5. The Customs Authorities therefore, cannot be faulted for having proceeded under section 72 of the Act. As soon as the dispute was cleared and the petitioner rewarehoused the goods, the petitioner's application for refund was promptly and readily accepted. Thus there was neither any delay nor any mala fide on part of the customs authorities in retaining the customs duty. In fact, the petitioner has rightly neither alleged delay nor mala fide on part of the Customs Authority. It is of-course the case of the petitioner that Customs Authority could not have collected duty under such circumstances. However, this is entirely different from suggesting that the action of the respondent authorities was actuated by mala fides.