ASHOK KUMAR KOCHAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before me the learned Counsel for the Customs Authority conceded that although thousands of writ petitions have been moved in this Court under similar situation and orders of similar nature have been passed by this Court to release the goods on the terms and conditions mentioned in those orders but nothing could be found for the last two or three years against the persons concerned in the matter of under invoicing of the value of the consigned goods disclosed by such persons. The learned Advocate for the Customs Authority only prays that liberty may be given to the Customs Authority to initiate proceeding against the concerned persons if something is brought to the notice of the authorities regarding under invoicing of the value of the goods which were imported to this country. The learned Advocate for the Customs Authority also produced an instruction received by him from the Assistant Collector of Customs, Group-Ill Calcutta from which it appears that the assessment of umbrella panels consignments in group is done provisionally upon execution of P.D. Bond by the parties who are obtaining orders from this Court or from any other appropriate Court. The consigned goods so far as those persons who did or do not obtain any Court order are concerned, are released on an execution of a bank guarantee to the extent of 20% of declared C.I.F. value. Let this instruction produced by the learned Counsel for the Customs Authority be kept with the record.

(2.) Mr. Kapoor, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that an attempt was made by the Customs Authority to find out whether really under invoicing of the C.I.F. value of the goods consigned was really made by the persons who are bringing these type of goods from foreign countries. According to him after thorough enquiry nothing could be found against the persons concerned in the matter of under invoicing of the value of the goods consigned.

(3.) Considering the above aspect of the matter and the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties I dispose of this writ application by making the following order :- It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for both the parties that at least 1000 cases have been moved in this Court for release of umbrella panels for the last two years and the order which was passed in Suresh Kumar Banthia v. Collector of Customs reported in was also passed by other different learned Judges of this Court. Even today the learned Counsel for the Customs Authority could not produce any order which is not similar to the order passed in the aforesaid case (Suresh Kumar Banthia v. Collector of Customs) nor any order of the Division Bench setting aside the decision rendered in. At the same time the submission of Mr. Kapoor that attempts were made by the Customs Authority to find out as to whether really under invoicing of valuation of the consigned goods was made by the persons who were bringing these goods from the foreign countries and nothing could-be found against he persons concerned could not be disputed by the learned Counsel for the Customs Authority. Considering the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and in view of. the fact that in more than 1000 cases similar orders have been passed in the similar situation and considering the instructions produced by the learned Counsel for the Customs Authority I do not find any reason not to follow the decision made in the case of Suresh Kumar Banthia v. Collector of Customs reported in.