The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the appellants to permit re-export of goods and impose charges, while considering the nature of the goods and the option to avoid tax assessment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 28.04.2022 in W.P(MD)No.8916 of 2022 and allow the Writ Appeal.)

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. Challenging the order of learned Single Judge dated 28.04.2022, made in W.P.(MD) No.8916 of 2022, the respondent in the writ petition has preferred the above appeal.

2. Heard Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Dr.S.Krishnanadh, for Mr.M.Ramasamy, appearing for the first respondent.

3. The respondent in the writ appeal filed W.P.(MD) No.11589 of 2021 for issuance of a a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to re-export the goods, namely, Unflavored Supari (Betelnut Product) classifiable under ITC (HS) code 21069030 covered under respective Bills of Entry Nos.7197611 and 7197624 both dated 22.01.2022 covered under Bills of Lading No.BLPLRGN2102381 dated 04.01.2022 consisting of 3 containers i.e., AMFU8846107, TCNU6471174 and TEMU6606496 and BLPLRGN2102383 dated 04.01.2022 consisting two containers i.e., TCNU6333560, TGHU7872147 respectively within a stipulated time considering the perishable nature of the goods that were detained/seized by the office of the respondents and direct the respondents to issue a 'Detention Certificate' for waiver of demurrage and container detention charges in terms of Regulations 6(1)(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 r/w Regulation 10(1)(1) of the Sea Cargo Manifest Transshipment Regulations, 2018.

4. The simple prayer in the writ petition is to direct the appellants to permit the respondent to re-export the goods, namely, Unflavored Supari (Betelnut Product) and to issue a 'Detention Certificate' for waiver of demurrage and container detention charges.

5. The respondent imported Betelnut Product with a particular description. Stating that the petitioner has imported goods by wrong classification, the appellants sought to levy duty by classifying the goods under Chapter VIII. However, the respondent stating that he cannot afford to pay tax under the classification proposed, submitted a representation to the appellants that the respondent may be permitted to re-export the goods to avoid tax being assessed under Chapter VIII. It is in this context the respondent has approached this Court by filing the writ petition.

6. Learned Single Judge following the decision of this Court dated 29.11.2021 made in W.P.No.24062 of 2021 in the matter of M/s.Unik Traders v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and another, has held as follows:

“8.Considering the above, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition in terms of paragraph No.92 of the aforesaid decision, which has been extracted above. Liberty is also given to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings that may be contemplated by the respondents. The respondents are directed to take action within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and come to a decision one way or the other within a period of 15 days thereafter. It is needless to state that before passing such orders, the petitioner shall also be heard.”

7. In the said order, learned Single Judge has given an option to the trader to re-export the imported goods, if they are held to be prohibited to be imported to mitigate the loss. In the same order, the appellants were permitted to impose or collect penalty, if the circumstances so warrant. It is against the order of learned Single Judge, the above appeal is preferred.

8. Though learned Standing Counsel for the appellants argued at length, this Court is unable to find any justification for the stand taken by the appellants. It is admitted before this Court that the decision of this Court in Unik Traders case (supra) is not challenged by the appellants in any forum and this Court is not convinced as to how the circumstances in the present can be dealt with differently. Though learned Standing Counsel for the appellants attempt