TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er/Plaintiff JUDGEMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, Acting Chief Justice:- 1. This petition seeks quashing of seizure memos dated 15th April, 2011 (Annexure P-2) and 30th April, 2011 (Annexure P-3) effected by the Intelligence Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ludhiana. 2. Case of the Petitioner is that it purchased fourteen containers of Heavy Melting Steel Scrap (HMSS) on high sea sale basis. Bills of entry in respect thereof were filed with the Custom Freight Station (CFS), Ludhiana on 5th April, 2011 for nine containers and on 27th April, 2011 for five containers. In the said bills of entry, the Petitioner declared that no Customs Duty was attracted, as the goods were scrap not exigible to any Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been effected by DRI and thus, Customs Department has no role in the matter. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the action of the department is arbitrary, illegal and mala fide. The bill of entry was filed on 5th April, 2011 and 27th April, 2011 and Customs Duty was paid as per stand of department itself on 7th May, 2011 in respect of the first consignment but still, without any valid reason, the goods have been kept seized for more than two months. Seizure was not by authorised officer. Provisional release order contains arbitrary conditions against orders of this Court in similar circumstances. Even the said order has been passed after long delay and after receivin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any stage is abuse of power, as no person can be debarred from asserting its case. It has been further held that requirement of furnishing bank guarantee equal to 25 per cent of the full market value of the goods could not be justified on a simple dispute of classification and valuation. It has also been held that gross delay in taking decision after seizure without any valid justification was arbitrary. Mere dispute of classification or valuation could not justify power of confiscation and imposing of condition of furnishing of bank guarantee equal to 25 per cent of the value of the goods. The said judgment is not shown to be distinguishable in its applicability to the present case. 8. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct imm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
