SAMAR DUTTA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner carries on the business of Automobile parts and components. The petitioner placed an order on a supplier in Singapore for supply of 2,500 sets Service Kit and one Carton containing 1,000 pcs. of Nozzles (hereinafter referred to as the said goods). The service kit are described with reference to Code Numbered 7135-110 and 7135-114. The Nozzles are described with reference to Code Number 6389. A letter dated 21st September, 1990 from the foreign supplier confirms the order and the price F.O.B. Singapore at the rate of 0.45 Singapore Dollars per set of Service Kit and 0.90 Singapore Dollars per piece of Nozzle. On 20th October, 1990 the said goods were air-freighted to Calcutta from Singapore. In the invoice the price has been mentioned as 0.45 Singapore Dollars per set of service kit C.I.F. Calcutta and 0.90 per unit of Nozzle in Singapore Dollars C.I.F. Calcutta. The Bill of Entry was filed together with copies of the Air-way Bill, Insurance Policy, Certificate of Origin, Invoice and packing list as well as the transferable REP Licence and the proforma invoice. By letter dated 1st November, 1990 the foreign supplier wrote to the petitioner stating that the invoice wrongly mentioned the price CIF whereas it should have been F.O.B. The letter was handed over to the Customs Authorities.

(2.) The petitioner moved this application on 21st December, 1990 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the refusal on the part of the respondents to process the Bill of Entry and to release the goods. The application was moved upon the notice to the respondents. An interim order was passed to the following effect:

(3.) In the petition, the petitioner had relied upon the Bills of Entry and Invoices dated 28-3-1989,25-6-1990 and 20-6-1990 in respect of identical goods. On the basis of the said annexed Bills of Entry it is contended that the price at which the petitioner had imported the said goods could not be said to be an undervaluation.