SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Del) 306

High Court Of Delhi
SUNDIP INDUSTRIES - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 555 of 1991
Decided On : 05/07/1991

Advocates Appeared:
G.L.RAVAL, P.K.JAIN, R.K.Joshi

The main legal principle established is that when the import is lawful and the valuation has been finally determined, the goods should be released without payment of charges.

Headnote:

Customs - Import of Goods - Release of Goods without Payment of Charges

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner imported components of electric typewriter and deposited duty, but the goods were detained and a show cause notice was issued. The Collector of Customs held the import unlawful, but the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the goods to be cleared at the declared value. Despite this, the goods were not released, leading to the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that since the import was lawful and the valuation had been finally determined by the Collector, the petitioner was entitled to a direction for the release of the goods without payment of any charges.

Issues: The issues involved the lawful import of goods, the determination of valuation, and the release of goods without payment of charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when the import was lawful and the valuation had been finally determined, there was no occasion for not releasing the goods without payment of charges.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to clear the goods of the petitioner forthwith without payment of any charges. Respondent no. 1 was also ordered to pay costs of the petition.

M. C. Jain

( 1 ) DESPITE opportunity, counter has not been filed and it was ordered on April 3, 1991 that in case counter is not filed the will beheard without counter.

( 2 ) RULE D. B.

( 3 ) THE petitioner imported components of electric typewriter and the consignment reached ICD on 27th September, 1985. The bill of entry was filed for clearance of goods. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 86 548. 25 as duty on 27th September, 1985. However, the goods were ordered to be detained and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which a reply was filed. On 24th December, 1986, the Collector of Customs held the import unlawful and directed for confiscation of the goods. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 28th April, 1989. It was held that the import was lawful. Howver for the purpose of valuation, the matter was remanded back to the Collector. The Collector of Customs on 11th July, 1990 held that the valuatiott declared by the petitioner was accepted and the goods be cleared at the declared value. The petitioner s grievance is that despite the orders of the Collector, the goods have not so far been released. The order of the Collector has become final and as such the respondents were required to comply with the order of Collector of Customs passed on 11th July, 1990. It may be stated that when the import was lawful, the goods could not be confiscated and when the valuation has also been finally determined by the Collector, i. e. the declared value as accepted by the Collector, then there. was no occasion for not releasing the goods and the petitioner cannot even be held liable for demurrage in these facts and circumstances. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the release of the goods without payment of any demurrage/ground rent charges/container charges in respect of the period from the date of filing of the bill of entry.

( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to clear the goods of the petitioner forthwith without payment of any demurrage/ground rent charges/container charges with effect from filing of the bill of entry. In case respondent no. 3 has any claim in respect of any charges, it may resort to appropriate remedy against respondent no. 1.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT no. 1 shall pay costs of the petition which we fix at Rs. 1,000. 00.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top