M.M. TELEKOM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the third and fourth respondents, viz., Additional Director General, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence and Deputy Director, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence to complete the investigation in respect of import of Compact Florescent Lamps made by the petitioner under cover of Bill of Entry No. 382177, dated 6 -3 -2002 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and not to insist upon deposit of any sum representing any duty before adjudication of the case as per Customs Act.

(2.) The precise case of the petitioner is that during the course of the business, the petitioner firm ordered for import of 100 cartons consisting of 20,000 pieces of Compact Florescent Lamps from Kiara Gemilang Enterprise. When the consignment arrived at Madras, the petitioner firm filed a Bill of Entry No. 382177 dated 6 -3 -2002 with the second respondent for the purpose of completing customs formalities and payment of appropriate duty. When the assessment was thus pending with the second respondent, the officers of the third and fourth respondents took away the bill of entry with the related documents for some alleged enquiry on entertaining doubts that the goods though declared as of the Malaysian origin may be from China and if Compact Florescent Lamps are imported from China, then they are liable for payment of Anti Dumping Duty in terms of Customs Notification 128/2002 dated 21 -12 -2001. It is the further case of the petitioner that the officers of the third and fourth respondents have issued summons to the petitioner to appear before them for tendering evidence relating to the above enquiry. In pursuant to the same, the petitioner appeared before the officers of the fourth respondent and a statement was recorded from him to the effect that though the goods are declared to be of Malaysian origin, they are of Chinese origin and therefore, the petitioner was prepared to pay the anti dumping duty. Further, the petitioner contended that the statement obtained was not voluntary and by use of force. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was pressurised by the third and fourth respondents to give the statement and also to undertake to pay the differential duty in spite of the repeated submissions that the goods have originated from Malaysia and the documents to prove the same have already been submitted. With this contention, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition with the prayer as stated above.

(3.) On notice, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has filed a counter controverting the various allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. However, the counter proceeds on the merits of the case.