O MOHAMMED RAFFI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS SEA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions were heard together since it was represented that they complement each other literally and figuratively. Each of the petitioners had imported the components of VCD players. But it was found that the spare parts imported by one when assembled with the spare parts imported by the other resulted in a Samsung VCD player what is called complete in a knocked-down condition. Therefore, the goods imported by the petitioners when assembled constitute 3600 pieces of Samsung 3CD/VCD/MP3 players complete in a knocked down condition. The petitioner in W.P.No.33381 of 2002 has paid the admitted duty. The petitioner in W.P.No.33003 of 2002 has not paid the duty.

(2.) The question is whether the Customs Authority can refuse to provisionally assess duty or to club the two imports to arrive at a conclusion that there has been mis-declaration or whether they are allowed to seize the goods. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are bound to provisionally assess the goods and allow the importer to clear the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Customs Act. It was submitted that though the petitioners were related, their business was different, the invoice showed different places of purchase and therefore, the import cannot be 'clubbed' together. It was also submitted that the goods were "perishable or hazardous goods" as per the Schedule to the Notification under Section 110 of the Customs Act.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel relied on two judgments: (1) Union of India Vs. Tarachand Gupta (1983 ELT 1456 (SC)) and (2) Collector of Customs Vs. Ganesh Raja Organisation (2000 (122) ELT 19(Mad).