D K LAB CHEMICALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 29th March, 2006, notice was issued to the respondents to show cause why writ petition be not admitted and disposed of at the admission stage. Pursuant thereto, notice has been served on the respondents and three affidavits have been filed in opposition to the writ petition. We heard the counsel for the parties for final hearing accordingly.

(2.) The petitioner claims to have purchased the consignment of car amplifiers and speakers from one M/s. Cosmo Trading Co., Hong Kong for Rs. 12,58,976.14 (US $ 27,516.80) on 17-9-2005. On 11-11-2005, the Bill of Entry was lodged for clearance of goods. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24-11-2005, the Bill of Entry was assessed as contemporary imports and audited by the Assessing Officer and sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) for final approval in the EDI system. The Bill of Entry was not assessed for quite some time and on 27-12-2005, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Appraising Group-7 (Respondent No. 2) issued order for exemption by taking samples and market survey. On 13-1-2006, the petitioner's clearing house agent applied for the permission to warehouse the goods pending assessment. The said permission was allowed. The petitioner filed the writ petition being writ petition No. 435 of 2006 before this court for release of the consignment. The respondent No. 2 filed reply to the said writ petition. On 21-2-2006, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition in the light of the statement made by the senior counsel for the respondents that the respondents shall release the imported goods based on NIDB data on the provisional assessment basis within a period of six weeks. The petitioner states thereafter on 1-3-2006, the advocate for the petitioner called upon the respondent No. 2 to assess the Bill of Entry on the basis of NIDB data as per the order dated 21st February, 2006. In response thereto, the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to submit PD bond of Rs. 1,00,71,808/- and bank guarantee for Rs. 25,00,000/- for provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry. This led to the petitioner in filing the present writ petition.

(3.) In the first affidavit dated 12th April, 2006 filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 through Vikram Wani, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the stand of the respondents is that on the basis of the report given in the case of M/s. Poojan Marketing by DRI on 25-11-2005, Bill of Entry of the present petitioner was examined and subjected to first check assessment and examination under SIIB(X) supervision. As per the report received from SIIB(X), retail price of the imported goods was found 10 to 20 times of the CIF and, therefore, the value of the imported goods is 4 to 8 times of the declared CIF value. It is stated that based on that, the petitioner was asked to give bond of Rs. 1,06,60,064/- and the bank guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000/-.