PRASAD ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the present petition, praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the consignments detained after import.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the petitioner imported two consignments of Fabrics namely "Polyester Fabric Bonded". The import consignments reached at ICD, Gariharsaru, Gurgaon but were not cleared in spite of the fact that the petitioner had approached the authorities by submitting bills of entry on 15-12-2006 and 18-12-2006. It is alleged that on persistent request made by the petitioner for release of the goods, it was only on 22-12-2006 that the goods were examined. It has further been pleaded that the goods imported are seasonal in nature, which are required for manufacture of garments to be used in winters and any delay in release of the consignments was detrimental to the business interest of the petitioner. Besides this, the petitioner was also incurring losses on account of demurrages. Still further, the petitioner submitted that in case the final assessment was not possible, the goods could very well be released by framing provisional assessment in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act').

(3.) In response to the notice issued, the respondents have filed reply and submitted that after the submission of bill of entry by the petitioner, on 18-12-2006 itself first check order was given for examination of goods. The samples for both the consignments were drawn and sent to CRCL for testing. On 22-12-2006, 100% examination of the goods was ordered. The test reports of the samples were received in the office of the respondents on 31-1-2007/1- 2-2007. As per the test report, it was found that the goods were liable to be classified under Customs Tariff heading 55151230 instead of Customs Tariff heading declared by the petitioner as 59070099. Besides there being huge difference in the value of goods declared by the petitioner, there was substantial difference in the rate of duty under both the entries. After the receipt of the test report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation.