Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. In both the writ petitions, the validity and legality of the seizure of certain goods intended to be exported to Libya is assailed. Hence both the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions, as stated by the petitioner in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, be noticed briefly as under: One B.J. Jawahar is the Proprietor of the petitioner-proprietary concern and he has executed a General Power of Attorney on 20.7.2000 in favour of Mr. D.L.V.R. Murthy, son of late D.R.K. Prasad, who is presently said to be serving in the petitioner-proprietary concern as Senior Manager (Projects). These writ petitions are filed on behalf of the Proprietary concern represented by Mr. D.L.V.R. Murthy. The petitioner is engaged in import and export of the goods and is a merchant exporter. The petitioner's import and export code number is 099003387. The petitioner procures export orders from various countries including Libya. The petitioner negotiated with Aziz and Company, Libya for export of electroplating plant for Cadmium, Zinc, Nickel, Hardchrome and Aluminium anodisation (turn key) and etc. After negotiating with the foreign buyer, the importer had placed order dated 25.2.2001 for purchase of above plant for a GIF value of US $ 50,000. As per the agreement with the foreign buyer, the goods are to be shipped to Libya in the month of June 2001 and the foreign buyer had agreed to make 100% payment in advance. The petitioner after receiving the purchase order, procured the goods locally and goods were carted to Inland Container Depot (ICD), Sanathnagar, Hyderabad for the purpose of export. The goods are sought to be exported under shipping bill for export of duty-free goods. Therefore, the petitioner filed free shipping bill as required under Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein. As per the procedure envisaged under Section 51 of the Act, the petitioner filed shipping Bill No.003500 dated 22.6.2001 before the 2"d respondent along with necessary documents for the purpose of passing of the shipping bill. The Superintendent of Customs, who is incharge of passing of free shipping bills, had examined the documents and after satisfying himself that the goods are exportable under relevant export policy passed the shipping bill on 23.6.2001. The Agent of the petitioner presented the shipping bill along with the goods on 25.6.2001 for examination and giving let export order to the concerned officer for the purpose of stuffing the goods into the container for export. According to the petitioner, before the goods could be examined by the officer, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence working under the Deputy Director of DRI, the 1st respondent herein, came to the ICD, Sanathnagar and wanted to examine the goods. For the purpose of examination of the goods by the DRI, the petitioner was also called to be present. The petitioner was present at the ICD on the afternoon of 25.6.2001. The Superintendent of Custom along with DRI officers opened all the packages for the purpose of examination and the officers carried out 100% examination of the goods and the goods were found to be as per the declaration given on the shipping bill, invoice and packing list. During examination nothing objectionable was found nor the goods contained any prohibited articles. After completion of the examination, the goods were repacked and are in the custody of the custodian i.e., CONCOR. When the matters stood thus, the petitioner was called to the office of the 1st respondent on 26.6.2001 for the purpose of explaining the nature of the goods. The petitioner claims that he explained about the nature of the goods to the officer of the 1st respondent and submitted technical catalogue of the goods as sought for. The clearing agent of the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for allowing export of the goods as the same are to be supplied urgently to the importer since 100% payment was received for the goods. The 2nd respondent did not give any answer. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 28.6.2001 to the 2nd respondent requesting to allow clearance of the goods. However, no reply was received from the 2nd respondent. This led to the petitioner making one more representation dated 30.6.2001 to the 2nd respondent bringing to his notice the delay in clearing the consignment for export and he sought to know the reasons as to why goods were being held up. The 2nd respondent by his letter C.No. 3500/22-6-2001 dated 30.6.2001 but signed on 2.7.2001 informed the petitioner that the 1st respondent had directed him to detain the consignment of the petitioner, but he refused to disclose the reasons as to why the consignment was detained. There afterwards, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent and gave a representation dated 3.7.2001 seeking reasons for detention of the goods. No response came from the 1st respondent. The petitioner after 3.7.2001 almost everyday went to the offices of the respondents 1 and 2 asking them to give clearance for export of the goods and to give reasons for detaining the consignment and since no reasons were given by respondents 1 and 2, except stating that they are looking into the matter and goods will be cleared shortly. In those circumstances, the petitioner personally met the Commissioner of Customs on 20.7.2001 and submitted a representation to him and the Commissioner promised to look into the matter. However, the consignment was not cleared. That led to the petitioner to file W.P. No. 15472 of 2001 before this Court on 27.7.2001 questioning the action of the respondents in detaining the goods without any reasons. The relief sought in the writ petition reads--