NAVNEET SPINNING MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : . Navneet Spinning Mills of Amritsar imported certain rags from . H.B. Textiles, Modern Business Park, Mytholurody Hebdex Bridge, West Yorkshire, U.K. who are suppliers of mutilated woollen rags. If the goods are mutilated woollen rags then they are permissible to be imported as free importable foods and do not figure in the negative list nor it is hit by Paragraph 156 of Import Export Policy, 1992-97. The aforesaid . H.B. Textiles shipped the consignment in 56 bales of total weight 24078 kg. as per Bill of Lading dated 25th September, 1995. The aforesaid goods were discharged at Calcutta Port in the first week of November, 1995.

(2.) According to the writ petitioner , although the writ petitioners were entitled to keep the goods in a bonded warehouse without any payment they had to pay such charges to the Calcutta Port Trust Authorities. This order of warehousing the goods was passed in the middle of January, 1996 and according to the writ petitioners a sum of Rs. 1,05,759 was deposited by them on 17th January, 1996. It is not in dispute that over and above the same, the writ petitioners had also paid a sum of Rs. 1,63,033 towards demurrage charges to Calcutta Port Trust Authorities and a further sum of Rs. 1,09,304/- to the steamer towards container charges for destuffing the goods in question. It is also not in dispute that since then the subject goods have not yet been released by the Customs Authorities. On 8th of June, 1996 the writ petitioner made a prayer before the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta and others for taking steps to release the goods in terms of an order passed by the CEGAT which was delivered by it in the case of Hardik Industrial Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in and also in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of Indian and Ors. v. Shine Woollen Mill (P) Ltd. delivered on 23rd of May, 1991 in Special Leave petition (C) No. 9939-40 of 1990. In this writ application, the writ petitioners have come to this Court inter alia for a direction upon the respondents to release the subject goods on mutilation by mutilating them for not more than 4 pieces. Alteratively, it has been prayed in the writ application that the respondent No. 2 be directed to act in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hardik Industrial Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra).

(3.) Before I proceed further it appears that on 8th of June, 1996 a prayer had been made by the writ petitioners to mutilate the subject goods and then to release the goods in terms of the directions made in the case of Hardik Industrial Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra). This application is at page 32 of this writ application. It is not in dispute that such a prayer has not yet been considered and disposed of in accordance with law by the Customs Authority.