(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a person who is the sole proprietor of an enterprise which is carrying on business of merchant exporter of various kinds of fabrics. As per the Import Policy Appendix 19 of AM-88, the petitioner has been given on Import licence for importing raw material without payment of any customs duty. That the petitioner has been given such an import licence is not deputed. In fact, as it is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the petition, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has issued to the petitioner two separate licences to enable him to import two separate quantities of polyester filament yarn of 10 deniers and above. The petitioner accordingly imported one consignment and filed a bill of entry for home consumption. The goods imported are undoubtedly notified goods, but the consignment after clearance was stored in the godown belonging to the clearing agents. The clerk of the clearing agents by inadvertence did not apply for a notified number. The goods were released on 13th August, 1986. On coming to know the inadvertence on the part of the clearing agents, the petitioner himself wrote a letter on 19th August, 1986 for permission under section 11C of the Customs Act to store the notified goods and gave all the particulars about the same.
(2.) The petitioner has specifically sated in the petition that there was a delay of 6 days on his part, but it was entirely due to the inadvertence of the clerk of the clearing agents.
(3.) After the respondents came to know of the fact as informed by the petitioner, the goods were seized and an order purported to be under section 11(1) of the Customs Act was issued by the Superintendent of Customs, Notified Goods Section, on 25th August, 1986. This is the notice which is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition originally came up for admission on 22nd January, 1987; thereafter it was adjourned to 30th January, 1987 and thereafter till today.