M/S.J.M.International vs The Union Of India on 28 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15817 of 2010(B)


1. M/S.J.M.INTERNATIONAL, REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :28/06/2010

 O R D E R
                              S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                        W.P(C) No. 15817 of 2010
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Dated this, the 28th day of June, 2010.

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner submits that the petitioner has imported certain

machines, which, according to the petitioner, are used digital

multifunction machines which have been assessed by the customs

authorities under the tariff applicable to photocopier and the

petitioner has been directed to pay differential duty, redemption fine

and penalty. The petitioner submits that the fine and penalty now

imposed is 50%, which is against the decision of this Court in Ext. P9

judgment of the Division Bench, which has categorically held that

redemption fine shall not exceed 10% and the fine shall not exceed

5%. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent

to release the goods. The petitioner made this submission because

the petitioner is unable to file an appeal because presently the

Appellate Commissioner is not in station to hear the appeals.

I directed the petitioner to file a proper appeal and then move the writ

petition producing copy of the same. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that an appeal has already been filed. He submits

that a copy of the same could not be placed because it is very

voluminous. However, he points out that in similar cases relating to

identical matters, this Court has already passed a judgment in W.P

(C) No. 15584 and connected cases on 17-6-2010. The petitioner

seeks similar orders in this writ petition also.

2. I have heard the Senior Central Government Standing

Counsel for Excise and Customs also.

3. In the decision quoted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, I have passed the following judgment:

“In these four writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved
by orders passed by the third respondent in respect of certain
goods imported by the petitioners. There was a dispute regarding
the classification of the goods. After adjudication, the third

W.P.C. No. 15817/2010. -: 2 :-

respondent passed orders directing the petitioners to pay
additional duty, redemption fine and penalty. The petitioners
submit that subsequent to filing of the writ petitions, appeals have
been filed before the appellate authority against the adjudication
orders. But, according to the petitioners, the appellate authority
cannot direct release of the goods, pending consideration of the
appeals. It is further submitted that by Ext.P7 order, a learned
Judge of this Court has allowed clearance of the goods on certain
conditions.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents
also. I am of opinion that it is only just and proper that the
petitioners be allowed to clear the goods on certain conditions,
pending disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, these writ petitions
are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the
goods to the petitioner pending disposal of the appeal on the
following conditions:

The petitioner shall pay the duty assessed on the goods.
The petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for 50% of the
redemption fine and penalty imposed as per the impugned orders
and shall furnish a bond for the remaining 50% to the satisfaction
of the Commissioner of Customs, Kochi.

In view of the said judgment, following the same, I dispose of this

writ petition also with a direction to the respondents to release the

goods to the petitioner pending disposal of the appeal on the following

conditions:

The petitioner shall pay the duty assessed on the goods. The

petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for 50% redemption fine and

penalty imposed as per the impugned orders and shall furnish a bond

for the remaining 50% for the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.