Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 10021 and 10036 of 2016, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

2. Inter-alia, the issue raised is regarding illegal detention of the goods imported by the petitioners and demand of detention and demurrage charges from the petitioners.

3. The facts have been taken from CWP No. 10021 of 2016, unless otherwise referred to.

Arguments of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner imported defective/secondary cold rolled sheets/coils from South Korea with varied thickness vide commercial invoice dated 27.10.2015. Re-inspection report was also annexed with the documents showing the goods to be defective/secondary/cold rolled sheets/coils with other details. Preferential certificate of origin was also annexed, which entitled the petitioner to duty free import. It was in terms of Korea-India Comprehensive Partnership Agreement. In the packing list, attached with the invoice, same product details were mentioned. In the bill of entry dated 4.12.2015, submitted with the Customs at Mumbai, same description of goods was mentioned. The goods were not released. Vide letter dated 14.12.2015 from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short, 'DRI') to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, request was made for putting on hold the import consignment of the petitioner as well as five other importers based at Ludhiana. The letter further provided that even in future, no import consignments of the firm be released without NOC from DRI. As the goods imported by the petitioner were not prohibited goods, request was made for provisional release thereof. A reminder to that effect was sent vide communication dated 22.12.2015 to the DRI and Customs. It was specifically mentioned in the letter that the goods may be released within 48 hours on provisional assessment. Early intervention was requested as the goods were incurring demurrage and detention charges. Vide communication dated 28.12.2015 from DRI to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, it was informed that consignment was put on hold on a specific intelligence that the firms had been importing goods to come out of the rigors of notification No. 02/2015 Cus (SG) dated 14.9.2015. It was requested that import consignments of Ludhiana based importers be examined 100% with the assistance of local Chartered Engineer pending custom clearance. The report of examination be prepared and copy be forwarded to DRI. It was also requested that photographs of the import consignments be taken. If the goods imported appeared to be offending the notification dated 14.9.2015, the same be dealt with under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the 1962 Act'). Proper samples be drawn and sent for testing to an authorised Government Laboratory. When nothing was done, the petitioner sent another reminder vide letter dated 30.12.2015 to DRI and Customs for provisional release of goods specifically pointing out that till date, the goods had not been examined. The delay was incurring demurrage and detention charges. It was followed by another reminder on 1.1.2016, when no action was taken by the Customs authorities in terms of the letter from DRI.

5. It was further argued that under these circumstances, the petitioner had no choice but to approach this court by filing CWP No. 572 of 2016 M/s Shri Lakshmi Steels v. UOI and others, in which notice of motion was issued for 11.1.2016. Prior thereto, without any intimation to the petitioner, Positive Material Identification test was got done by the customs authorities on 5.1.2016 with reference to bill of entry No. 3480776 dated 4.12.2015. He further submitted that it was only after filing of the writ petition by the petitioner in this court that the goods imported were got inspected from the Chartered Engineer. The inspection report dated 19.1.2016 has been produced on record. The inspection was done only in the presence of the customs off