Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40073
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
M/S TECHNOVA IMAGING SYSTEMS (P) LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 22562/2014
Proper documentation and declarations are mandatory in inter-state transport of goods to avoid detention and ensure compliance with legal provisions.
Headnote:
Detention - Goods delivery - Acts & Sections: 8F, 8FA - The court emphasized the necessity of proper declarations at checkpoints and the implications for goods transport under scrutiny, influencing its decision to conditionally release the detained goods pending security deposit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a consignor, challenged the detention of goods meant for delivery within the State, citing an absence of proper declarations. One consignment was detained for lack of an 8FA declaration while being transported amidst a statewide Hartal.
Issues: Whether the detention of goods due to lack of declaration and transport authorization was justified, and the appropriate conditions for releasing the goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that proper document declarations are essential for lawful transport, thus validating the detention but allowing for conditional release to mitigate undue hardship.
Final Decision: The detained goods shall be released upon remitting a specified security deposit.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is concerned with three detention notices produced at Exts.P3 and P3(b). The consignor, who is the petitioner herein, had supplied goods inter-State on three invoices to three different dealers within the State. The petitioner entrusted the same to a transport. Two of the goods were delivered at Ernakulam, detention of which is by Exts.P3(a) and P3(b). One of the consignment was to Trivandrum, which is evidenced by Ext.P3. With respect to the consignment to Trivandrum, there is no 8F declaration. The submission of the petitioner is that, in fact there was a Hartal on that day in the State of Kerala and hence transport carried all the goods to Trivandrum so as to deliver the one at Trivandrum and then on the way back to deliver both the consignments at Ernakulam.
W.P.(C) No. 22562 of 2014 - U 2
2. It is to be noticed that the petitioner is also a dealer within the State of Kerala, the transport to Trivandrum from Cochin definitely was not sanctioned even by the documents available with the goods. The suspicion raised on that account cannot be said to be totally without reason. With respect to the goods to be delivered at Trivandrum, the detention was for the reason that there is no 8FA declaration. What however, assumes significance is that, the goods to Trivandrum were not declared at the boarder check post.
3. In such circumstance, which were detained by Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) shall be released on the petitioner remitting 25% of the security deposit demanded as per the said notices and furnishing simple bond without solvent sureties. With respect to the detention of goods at Ext.P3, the same shall be released on the petitioner remitting 50% of the security deposit demanded and also furnishing simple W.P.(C) No. 22562 of 2014 - U 3 bond without solvent sureties as expeditiously on production of the certified copy of this judgment. The adjudication proceedings shall be carried on untrammelled by the observations made herein.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
