GOLDEN DRAGON TRADERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges detention of goods, shipped by the petitioner to India from Hong Kong, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, respondent No. 5 herein as per communication dated 02. 01. 2009

(2.) UPON issuance of notice respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have tendered affidavit-in-reply dated 28. 01. 2009. The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 09. 02. 2009. As the pleadings are complete and the controversy is limited in scope, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. RULE. Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to waive service.

(3.) THE facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner, a proprietary trading organization, registered under the laws of Hong Kong, is engaged in business of trading in rough diamonds. It is the case of the petitioner that a commission agent in Hong Kong approached the petitioner for shipment of consignment of rough diamonds to buyers in India. Accordingly, the petitioner prepared invoices and shipped a total of seven consignments of rough diamonds to the said buyers under airway bills sometime on or about 21. 11. 2008. It is the say of the petitioner that before the relevant documents, including documents to the title, could be dispatched, the petitioner learnt that the said buyers had refused to accept the consignments in absence of any confirmed order having been placed by the buyers. The alleged buyers in India rejected the delivery of goods on 12. 12. 2008. Therefore, on 13. 12. 2008 the petitioner wrote to the competent authority for permission to re-ship and/or re-export the said goods back to Hong Kong. This was followed up by various communications and visits to the offices of respondent Nos. 3 and 5. Vide impugned communication dated 02. 01. 2009 respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that as the matter was under investigation by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat and as no Bills of Entries had been filed by the petitioner, re-export or re-shipment could not be permitted at the said point of time. It is the say of the petitioner that it was only by the said communication that the petitioner came to be know that the consignments had been detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat, but no notice of such detention was served on the petitioner. Hence the petition, praying for release of the goods and permit the petitioner to re-ship / re-export the said goods.