N C ALEXANDER Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that this Court had been passing a number of orders, in similar facts and circumstances, as in the present writ petition, directing the respondents to release the goods in question, on the petitioner paying 30% of the differential duty and on his furnishing a personal bond for the balance amount. THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on one of such orders, dated 1.3.2011, made in W.P.No.4981 of 2011.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that this Court may be pleased to pass a similar order, as in the other similar writ petitions, as there are no changes in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the original contract, based on which the petitioner had imported the goods in question, does not seem to be genuine in nature. There are many discrepancies found in the documents produced by the petitioner before the respondents. The Apostille, certified by the Secretary of State, the State of Washington, United States of America, does not contain the necessary particulars, as to the person in whose favour it had been issued and the purpose for which it has been issued.