UMANG OVERSEAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A partnership firm, who is in the business of export, has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to grant provisional release of the goods, covered under shipping bill Nos. 2302618, 2302619, 2302623 all dated 21.01.2011 and Shipping Bill Nos. 2401710, 2401712, 2401737 all dated 02.02.2011 in terms of provision of Section 18 read with Section 110A of the Customs Act and in accordance with Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, they are in the business of exporting goods, namely, Polyester fabric out of India in terms of provision of Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide shipping bill Nos. 2302618, 2302619, 2302623 all dated 21.01.2011 (Container No.BLJU 4050374), which were exported to Afghanistan on the order of M/s.Right Choice Trading Ltd., 52A, TWR 2, Caribbean Coast, Hong Kong and M/s.Salman Tarabar Toor Transport Co. Ltd. The quantity, value and the DEPB incentive claimed by the petitioner on the said goods are as under: Container No.BLJU4050374

(3.) PER Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the goods imported found to be of inferior quality. The petitioner had overvalued the goods with an intention to avail undue benefit, which otherwise not available to the extent claimed by the petitioner. He would further contend that at the time of investigation by the revenue individuals, the petitioner was unable to furnish the purchase invoice bill evidencing the purchase of the said fabrics to arrive at FOB value declared in the shipping bills based on which the petitioner would get the benefit under the DEPB scheme. Therefore, in the absence of proper documents, the value declared by the petitioner is liable for rejection under Rule 8 and the value determined by the officials under Rule 6 was taken as the true transaction value for the purpose of assessment based on the local market value. He contended that the petitioner requested for the release of the goods for the purpose of domestic use without any export incentives. On the other hand, the petitioner has pleaded before this Court to release the provisional goods for the purpose of export stating that it would bring valuable foreign exchange into the country. Lastly, the learned counsel pointed out that during the personal hearing, the petitioner inter-alia informed that he will produce past one year records of export and realization of BRC within a week, but no such records have been produced till date and passing of the adjudication order is pending for want of the same.