RFA(OS) No.6-7/2006 Page 1 of 14

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RFA(OS) 6-7/2006

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Appellants

Represented by : Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG

instructed by Ms.Sonia

Sharma, Standing counsel

and Mr.Gurpreet Singh,

Advocate.

versus

M/S NAVSHAKTI INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent

Represented by : Mr.T.P.S.Kang, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. The appellant before us is Union of India impugning the

judgment and decree dated March 22, 2002 whereby an ex-

parte decree for a sum of Rs `46,31,929/- with costs,

pendent lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. was passed in

favour of respondent herein i.e. M/s Navshakti Industries P.

Ltd.

2. At the outset, we may note that the judgment and

decree

being

ex-parte,

appellant

had

impugned

the

judgment on its legality, referring the facts pleaded and

proved on affidavit by way of ex-parte evidence by the

respondent.

3. The case of the respondent (plaintiff in CS(OS)

No.2667/1998) is that it is a company incorporated under

2012:DHC:2179-DB

RFA(OS) No.6-7/2006 Page 2 of 14

The Companies Act, 1956 and was importer, exporter and

trader of various kinds of newsprints and printing papers

from various countries. The respondent used to place orders

and foreign suppliers sent the goods which reached the

International Containers Deport (hereinafter referred to as

ICD), Tughlakabad. The goods used to be got released by the

respondent from there on completing the formalities.

4. The facts giving rise to cause of action for filing the suit

pertained to the import of newsprint/printing paper from

various countries during the period July, 1997 to December,

1997. On getting the information, respondent filed the bill of

entry

for

release

of

the

goods

alongwith

complete

documents in the office of AC (Customs). The items

imported were allowed under Open General Licence but the

goods were not released by the Custom on the pretext that

previous test reports of such goods were not available.

5. The plaintiff was ready to give the test bonds against

each bill of entry alongwith undertaking to pay the custom

duty so that it was not burdened with demurrage/detention

charges. Despite that, the goods were detailed for want of

test reports from the Laboratory.

6. The plaintiff has given the details of each bill of entry

alongwith date of arrival of container, name of Shipper,

weight and other particulars in para 6 of the plaint and

extracted on pages 2 to 8 of the impugned judgment, so we

do not consider it necessary to reproduce. The fact of the

matter is that 80% of the goods were released to the

importer immediately and remaining 20% detained awaiting

the test report.

7. The respondent requested the appellants for release of

2012:DHC:2179-DB

RFA(OS) No.6-7/2006 Page 3 of 14

the containers containing goods and respondent was ready

to give the Test Bonds against each bill of entry alongwith an

Undertaking to pay the custom duty, if found payable.

Thereafter respondent filed all the bills of entries and Test

Bonds. Despite the Test Bonds having been filed by the

respondent, the goods were not released and detained for

months.

8. Ultimately on testing, as the consignment/goods

imported by respondent were found to be as per the bills of

entries, no duty was payable under the Customs Act. The

detention certificate was issued to the respondent by

Custom

Authorities

but

request

made

to

Container

Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as CCI) and the

Shipping

Company

to

remit

the

demur