Madras High Court
M/S.Pankaj Electronics vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 17 September, 2012
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 17-9-2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.23406 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 M/s.Pankaj Electronics 15-1-751/13, 2nd Floor, Haridas Road, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad-500 095, Rep. By its Proprietor, Shri Virender kumar .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Imports), Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5) Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5) Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to provisionally assess and permit clearance of 183 units of used printers, forming the subject matter, vide Bill of Entry No.4009612 dated 7.7.2011, upon the payment of applicable duties of Customs on the enhanced assessable value as determined by the Chartered Engineer, pursuant to the orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, vide its order dated 30.12.2011 in C.Cus.No.873 of 2011 and by adequately safeguarding the interest of the petitioner by issuing appropriate Detention Certificate to the concerned container Freight Station (CFS) where the goods are stationed, in terms of Regulation 6(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009, due to the delay caused by the respondent in releasing the goods under import. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Viswanathan For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present writ petition, have already been dealt with by this Court, in its order, dated 27.2.2012, made in W.P.No.21732 of 2011 etc. (batch). The said order had been followed by this Court in a number of writ petitions. One such order had been passed, on 11.7.2012, in W.P.No.13050 of 2012 etc. (batch). Further, paragraph 5 of the order, dated 9.4.2012, made in W.P.No.2401 of 2012 etc. (batch) reads as follows:
"Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the authorities to release the goods in question which had already been inspected by the authorised engineers, on payment of the appropriate customs duty, subject to the adjudication process conducted as per the relevant provisions of law and in case relating to goods not been inspected by authorised chartered engineers, the customs authorities concerned shall direct the inspection of such goods before they are released and such goods may be directed to be released on payment of the appropriate customs duty and on the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed by law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. It is also made clear that the impugned goods may be released as expeditiously as possible."
In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that a similar order may be passed in the present writ petition.
3. It has been further submitted that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had passed an order, dated 30.12.2011, in C.Cus.No.873/2011, setting aside the order of the second respondent. In the said order the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had observed that the goods in question are not hazardous in nature and that no licence is required for importing the same. It had also been observed that the goods imported by the petitioner are printers and that it is not an item mentioned in Paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, as they are digital multifunction machines and they cannot be termed as photocopiers, as held by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. The learned counsel had further submitted that the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), dated 30.12.2011, made in C.Cus.No.873/2011, had become final, as the said order had not been challenged by the respondent customs department. However, the goods in question had not been released by the respondents, till date, in spite of the requests made by the petitioner for their release.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, he had submitted that writ appeals have been filed, in W.A.No.824 of 2012 etc. (batch), before this Court, challenging the order, dated 27.2.2012, made in W.P.No.21732 of 2011 etc. (batch) and the said writ appeals are pending before a Division Bench.
5. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the goods in question, which have already been inspected by the authorized chartered engineers, on payment of the appropriate customs duty and the other charges, if any, as per the relevant provision of law. The petitioner shall also fulfill the necessary conditions prescribed by law, before the release of the goods in question. On the petitioner fulfilling such conditions, the goods in question shall be released, by the respondents, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index:Yes/No 17-9-2012 Internet:Yes/No csh To
1. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Imports), Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
2. The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5) Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5) Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh Writ Petition No.23406 of 2012 17-9-2012