TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the 5th respondent for re-export of 8 containers arrived at Cochin Port on 14-10-2000 from Korea at the cost of the petitioner. 3.The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner imported during the last one year 35 consignments of Polyurethane (PU) sheets and Poly Vinyl Chloride (PV) sheets used as foot wear insoles through Cochin Port and the containers were transshipped from Cochin Port to Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Coimbatore. 4.It is the further case of the petitioner that PU sheets and PV sheets are mainly imported from Taiwan and China that the quality of the goods imported from Taiwan will be superior and consequently the price will be almost double ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consignments of goods imported from Taiwan arrived at Cochin Port that the 5th respondent at the instance of the 3rd respondent not only refused to transship the containers to ICD Coimbatore but also detained them at Cochin Port that the request of the petitioner to transship the container to ICD Coimbatore were not considered by the 5th respondent and the request of the shipping lines, steamer agents and the distributors to re-export the containers for the reason of incurring heavy demurrage, ground rent and deterioration of the quality of the items is of no avail, that after prolonged request and approach of the concerned authorities the petitioner by their letter dated 23-11-2000 requested the second respondent to provisionally relea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or balance amount as contemplated in the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulation, 1963 and he has also argued very elaborately about the loss and hardship sustained by the petitioner because of the impugned detention order. In view of the hardship said to have been caused to the petitioner, by safeguarding the interest of the Revenue, the respondents are directed to release the goods by accepting 20% of the differential duty between 0.36 US$ and 1.04 US$ as claimed and also on the petitioner executing a bond for the balance amount of the differential duty." 8.When the matter is taken up for final order learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jayachandran submitted that the interim order of this Court dated 21-2-2001 could very wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods at Cochin Port, that the permission sought for to transship the container to ICD Coimbatore was not heeded, that the officials of the 5th respondent broke open the containers and conducted examination of the goods without the knowledge of the petitioner that it is learnt that according to the appraising officials report the goods found were Vest Fabric which is freely importable with rate of duty at 12% whereas the goods described in the Bills of Lading as Flock Fabric (PU/PV sheets) from Korea with rate of duty at 57% and the very same episode is repeated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition No. 1285 of 2001 as to the approach made by the petitioner and the shipping lines, steamer agents and distributors. 13.It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s prior to 21-3-2000 by misdeclaring that the goods will be sold in a place where sales tax is leviable, but actually sold the same in sales tax exempted States; that the value of the goods for which SAD has been availed would be approximately Rs. 26 lakhs; that the goods imported prior to 31-3-2000 required Special Import Licence (SIL) but were cleared without producing a Special Import Licence; that the CLRI is of the opinion that the goods imported cannot be used for the purpose declared by the importer and that the authorised signatory of the petitioner is Ex COFEPOSA detenu. 17.It is the case of the respondent that it is found on enquiry that the imported PU cloths are sold in the retail at Rs. 220/- per sq. metre but the declared v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 21-2-1991. 20.I heard the Counsel on either side and perused the material on records. 21.Admittedly the goods imported by the petitioner are not contraband goods nor goods covered under the negative list either. The goods are freely importable and are imported under Open General Licence. As seen from the show cause notice as well as the counter affidavit of the respondents, the only allegation is that the goods have been undervalued. Even if it is considered as a mis-declaration so as to undervalue the goods, of course it is not the case of either side, I am of the considered view that these allegations cannot be a ground for refusing permission to re-export the goods. Whatever the action, the respondents are contemplating, it is ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
