RAJESH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is engaged in the business of export and import and had been allotted an importer code number by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Guahati, Assam. The petitioner, it is contended in the writ petition, imported a consignment of decorative articles directly from a manufacturer at Italy. The said consignment of articles arrived at the port of Calcutta on February 24, 1999 and the bill of entry for home consumption was filed on behalf of the petitioners by the clearing agent on 4th March, 1999. The customs authorities by an order dated 4th March, 1999 on the said bill of entry not only directed for examination of the goods but also directed the goods to be detained without assigning any reason and the said goods are lying seized though no formal notice of such purported seizure under section 110 of the Customs Act, hereunder referred to as the Act, was ever issued. The said order dated 4th March, 1999 was also recorded in the copy of the bill of entry of the petitioners. On 16th March the customs authorities issued an Appraiser's Query calling for submitting copy of the invoice of the manufacturer with justification on the coverage of licence. It is contended that the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents. Though the respondents examined the said goods and drew examples but neglected to release the consignment without assigning any reason. It has been stated that on 29th July, 1999 and on 10th August, 1999 the Appraiser of Revenue Intelligence issued summonses under section 108 of the Act to the petitioner No. 2 and called upon the petitioners to give evidence and produce documents relating to the importation of the said articles. The petitioners, it has been contended, attended the summonses and also produced documents and gave evidence in complains to the said summonses and though more than six months have passed since the purported seizure, the respondent No. 2 neither released the goods nor issued any show cause notice to the petitioner under section 110 of the said Act. The petitioners have stated that such seizure beyond a period of six months from the said seizure in the absence of the show cause notice is illegal, wrongful and not permissible in law. The petitioners, it is stated repeatedly, approached the respondent No. 2 for release of the goods but without success. Hence, the writ petition. Pursuant to the order of the Court, affidavits have been exchanged.

(2.) The prayer in the writ petition which is relevant is as follows: a) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents and each of them to refrain from causing any delay or further delay in the matter of release of the consignment of the petitioners containing decorative items any further in any manner whatsoever.

(3.) Mr. Ramesh Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, submitted since no notice had been issued under section 124 of the Act within the time prescribed under section 110(2) of the Act a'nd the time having not been extended under the proviso to section 110 of the Act, the detention of the articles is without jurisdiction and illegal. Reliance was placed on the judgements of the Supreme Court in Shanti Lal Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1983 ELT 1715 SC and Gian Chand & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1983 ELT 1365 SC to support his contention. It was further submitted that the transacted value of the articles is sought to be rejected on the basis of the catalogue price. Mere quotation of the price in the catalogue is not the value of the transacted goods. What is required to be seen is whether the documents are genuine or not and in the instant case, the customs authorities are not saying that they are not genuine. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Traders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, reported in 2000(4) RLT 621 SC.