KIRTILAL MOOLCHAND AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for what period the petitioners are entitled to receive detention certificate from the Customs Authorities. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the claim made by the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners secured a licence on November 21, 1979 for import of alloy steel scrap to any chemical composition as shown under Item 23 Appendix 7 of Import Policy April 1978 to March 1979. In pursuance of the licence, the petitioners were entitled to import 140.243 metric tonnes of Alloy steel scrap. The imported goods arrived by the ship in May 1980 and three bills of entry bearing Nos. 6/92, 260/78 and 260/79 were filed on May 9, 1980. The Customs Authorities did not bother to examine the goods till October 8, 1980 and the goods were lying open under the sky. The Appraiser Group of Customs made a report on October 13, 1980 that though the goods imported are scrap they are of serviceable condition. The petitioners made request for re-examination of goods by an independent authority and accordingly the Customs referred the matter to the Regional Iron & Steel Controller. Curiously this independent authority did not bother to carry out any examination for over one year inspite of several reminders sent by the petitioners. As the report was not received, show cause notice was given to the petitioners and after personal hearing, an adjudication order was passed and the petitioners were permitted to clear the goods covered by the three bills of entries on August 5, 1981.

(3.) The petitioners were issued detention certificate in respect of bills of entry Nos. 6/92 and 260/78 on August 14, 1981 and the period covered by this detention certificate was from October 8, 1980 to August 5, 1981. The petitioners claim that the detention certificate should be given in respect of the third bill of entry and the period of detention certificate should be from May 8, 1980 and not from the date when the Appraiser group examined the goods. The request made by the petitioners did not receive any response from the Customs Authorities and that gave rise to filing of the present petition in June, 1982.