{"id":5368,"date":"2008-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-12-01T15:04:01","modified_gmt":"2018-12-01T09:34:01","slug":"ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited … vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited … vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008<\/div>\n
CWP No.13914 of 2008                                            1\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                  AT CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                          CWP No.13914 of 2008\n                                       Date of decision: 5 .8.2008\n\n      M\/s Kundan Rice Mills Limited Panipat\n                                                           Petitioner\n                                  v.\n      Union of India and others<\/a>\n\n\n                                                   -----Respondent.\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL\n        HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI\n\nPresent:- Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with\n          Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.\n          Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1& 2.\n               ----\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
1.         This petition seeks quashing of seizure Memo<\/p>\n
(Panchnamas) dated 10.7.2008, 11.7.2008,            15.7.2008 and<\/p>\n
22.7.2008, Annexures P.2, P.5, P.7 and P.12 and provisional<\/p>\n
release letter dated 25.7.2008, Annexure P.14. Further prayer is to<\/p>\n
direct release of goods of the petitioner lying seized at its godowns<\/p>\n
and at Port and also for a direction to return sum of Rs.2 crores<\/p>\n
deposited under coercion and threat.\n<\/p>\n
2.         Case of the petitioner is that in August\/September 2007,<\/p>\n
he imported 14 consignments of 1843 MT EVA. He declared value<\/p>\n
of the goods to be USD 1100-1156 PMT. The department
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
enhanced value     from USD 1100 to USD 1560 PMT. The<\/p>\n
petitioner paid assessed duty under protest and sought passing of a<\/p>\n
speaking order under section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The<\/p>\n
petitioner also paid about Rs.1 crore as custom duty. In<\/p>\n
March\/June 2008, the petitioner again imported EVA and DCP and<\/p>\n
filed Bill of entry. The Assessing Officer permitted clearance of<\/p>\n
goods after revising the value on the basis of contemporaneous<\/p>\n
import.\n<\/p>\n
3.         On 10.7.2008, representative of Directorate of Revenue<\/p>\n
Intelligence conducted search at the business premises of the<\/p>\n
petitioner. On account of ill-health and fearing arrest, the<\/p>\n
Managing Director deposited Rs.2 crores. On 11.7.2008,<\/p>\n
representative respondent No.2 seized material lying at the godown<\/p>\n
of the petitioner, which was 2833 MT. The petitioner requested for<\/p>\n
release of goods on 15.7.2008 reiterating the value declared. On<\/p>\n
15.7.2008, again representative of respondent No.2 seized the<\/p>\n
material which was received after the first seizure. The<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Customs, Bombay vide letter dated 16.7.2008<\/p>\n
restrained the petitioner from removing the goods covered by bills<\/p>\n
of entry dated 30.6.2008. Out of the said goods, part of the goods<\/p>\n
had already reached Delhi and Panipat, while the remaining 192<\/p>\n
MT material was still in the process of loading at dry port. The
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner was asked to submit details of the seized material which<\/p>\n
was complied by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
4.         On 22.7.2008, the petitioner sought release of goods<\/p>\n
against deposit of Rs.2 crores already made but respondent No.2<\/p>\n
further seized material lying in Panipat godown.<\/p>\n
5.         Contention raised in the petition is that goods are lying<\/p>\n
in open and may be damaged because of rain and the petitioner<\/p>\n
may incur heavy demurrage and storage charges. Respondent No.2<\/p>\n
vide letter dated 25.7.2008 offered to release the material on<\/p>\n
provisional basis subject to stringent conditions which are as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
           (i)       Adjustment of Rs.50 lacs only has been done
\n                     out of deposit of Rs.2 crores towards
\n                     differential duty on the ground that remaining
\n                     amount of Rs.1.5 crores was in favour of
\n                     Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi while
\n                     the   goods   have   been     imported through
\n                     CFS,Mulund.<\/p>\n
           (ii)      Highest value of contemporary imports has
\n                     been taken and bank guarantee of 10% of
\n                     seizure value of goods has been demanded.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     6.           It is contended that the above conditions are harsh<\/p>\n
     and no opinion that goods are liable to confiscation has been
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
    recorded. Under Rule 4(3) of the Customs Valuation<\/p>\n
    (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007,<\/p>\n
    lowest value of transactions of value of identical goods is to<\/p>\n
    be taken. No show cause notice has so far been issued nor<\/p>\n
    order passed confirming the demand. Even provisional<\/p>\n
    assessment has not been done. At best, the petitioner could be<\/p>\n
    required to pay differential duty and was not required to<\/p>\n
    secure the department against value of goods unless a finding<\/p>\n
    of liability to confiscation was recorded. The value of goods<\/p>\n
    has already been loaded on the basis of contemporary import<\/p>\n
    and thereafter seizure was not justified on the ground of<\/p>\n
    undervaluation. For recording an opinion of liability to<\/p>\n
    confiscation, there has to be some basis attributing mens rea<\/p>\n
    to the petitioner, confiscation being in the nature of a penal<\/p>\n
    action. Seizure on simple valuation dispute was against<\/p>\n
    instructions of Central Board of Excise & Customs.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    7.         In the reply filed, apart from denying the<\/p>\n
    averments in the writ petition, stand taken on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    respondents is that the main working of the petitioner was at<\/p>\n
    Delhi and thus, the territorial jurisdiction of this Court could<\/p>\n
    not be invoked merely on account of part of goods having<\/p>\n
    been seized at Panipat. Reliance, inter-alia, has been placed
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
    on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in             Canon<\/p>\n
    Steels P.Limited v. Commissioenr of Customs (Export<\/p>\n
    Promotion)<\/a> (2007) 218 ELT 161 and Kusum Ingots &<\/p>\n
    Alloys Limited v. Union of India,<\/a> (2004) 168) ELT 3. It has<\/p>\n
    been further stated that the petitioner had alternative remedy<\/p>\n
    in the form of opportunity to reply the show cause notice<\/p>\n
    which will be issued after investigation and thus, writ<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction could not be resorted to during pendency of<\/p>\n
    investigation. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the<\/p>\n
    Hon’ble Supreme Court on Assistant Collector of Central<\/p>\n
    Excise v.Jainson Hosiery Industries, 1979(4) SLT (J511).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    8.         As regards deposit of Rs.2 crores, it is stated the<\/p>\n
    said amount was paid voluntarily towards partial payment of<\/p>\n
    duty evaded. Reasons for seizure are clear from Panchnamas<\/p>\n
    that the goods are liable to confiscation. Reason to believe<\/p>\n
    only required holding of a belief on the basis of material and<\/p>\n
    the same was not subject to judicial review. Clearance of<\/p>\n
    goods under section 47 did not bar action under section 110.<\/p>\n
    The petition involves disputed questions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    9.         In the additional affidavit filed by the Deputy<\/p>\n
    Director, it has been further stated that writ petition could not<\/p>\n
    be entertained during investigation in view of judgments of
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
    the Hon’ble Supreme Court        in Special Director and<\/p>\n
    another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, (2004)<\/p>\n
    164 ELT 141, Union of India and others v. M\/s Livia<\/p>\n
    Exports and<\/a> another, (2000) 116 ELT 13 and State of<\/p>\n
    Bihar v. JAC Saldanna, AIR 1980 SC 326. It has also been<\/p>\n
    stated that Managing Director of the petitioner admitted in<\/p>\n
    his statement dated 10.7.2008 that the petitioner was never<\/p>\n
    signing any contract with Overseas suppliers and he<\/p>\n
    deposited amount of Rs.2 crores towards differential customs<\/p>\n
    duty voluntarily. Investigation conducted revealed that<\/p>\n
    valuation declared by the petitioner was not correct as<\/p>\n
    compared to price declared by actual user importers.<\/p>\n
    Clearance of goods was no bar to further action under section<\/p>\n
    111 of the Customs Act as no finality was attached to the<\/p>\n
    order of assessment and even thereafter investigation into<\/p>\n
    allegation of mis-declaration was conducted. Reference has<\/p>\n
    been made to the provisions of Sections 122, 124, 125, 126,<\/p>\n
    127 of the Customs Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10.        We have heard learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
    perused the record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11.        Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the<\/p>\n
    point of release of goods as detention of goods for a long
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
    time would result in deterioration thereof apart from<\/p>\n
    hampering the business of the petitioner. He submitted that<\/p>\n
    harsh conditions could not be imposed for release. Reference<\/p>\n
    was made to letter dated 25.7.2008, Annexure P.14, offering<\/p>\n
    provisional release subject to following conditions:-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             “1.   Payment    of   differential   duty   amounting<\/p>\n
             Rs.1,34,99,633\/- (after allowing adjustment of rs.50<\/p>\n
             lakhs already deposited vide letter dated 10.7.2008).<\/p>\n
             The calculation chart showing differential duty to be<\/p>\n
             paid on the seized goods, seized vide panchnama<\/p>\n
             dated 11.7.2008 is enclosed as Annexure A.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             2. Execution of bank guarantee to the extent of 10%<\/p>\n
             of the seizure value of the goods lying seized in<\/p>\n
             your godown.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3. Execution of indemnity bond equivalent to the<\/p>\n
             seizure value as mentioned in panchnama dated<\/p>\n
             11.7.2008.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             4. An undertaking in the form of an affidavit that<\/p>\n
             you will not challenge the identity of the said seized<\/p>\n
             goods during adjudication proceedings or during<\/p>\n
             prosecution if any launched against you.”
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
12.         It was submitted that conditions 2 and 3 with regard to<\/p>\n
demand of bank guarantee to the extent of the value of goods and<\/p>\n
demand of indemnity bond equal to seizure value of goods were<\/p>\n
harsh conditions. The department was only concerned with the<\/p>\n
duty and even according to their provisional estimate, the<\/p>\n
differential duty worked out to Rs.1,34,99,633\/- which was much<\/p>\n
lesser than the amount already deposited by the petitioner with<\/p>\n
them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.         It was submitted that neither any show cause notice had<\/p>\n
been issued nor any other justification shown for confiscation of<\/p>\n
goods and duty assessed having been paid and at best, a case for<\/p>\n
safe securing duty was made out.\n<\/p>\n
14.         Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that<\/p>\n
seizure value of goods was Rs.40 crores and even on the ground of<\/p>\n
undervaluation, the goods could be confiscated in which case, the<\/p>\n
same will vest in the government and, thus, the department was<\/p>\n
entitled to safeguard itself against the value of goods. If the goods<\/p>\n
were released without safeguarding the department against value of<\/p>\n
goods, the petitioner would be at liberty to sell the goods and use<\/p>\n
the proceeds and the department will suffer loss. Conditions were,<\/p>\n
thus, justified.\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.13914 of 2008                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
15.        Question is whether stand of the department in<\/p>\n
imposing conditions with a view to safeguard itself against the<\/p>\n
value of goods as against value of duty could be held to be illegal.<\/p>\n
16.        Learned counsel for the parties have referred to various<\/p>\n
orders passed on the issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied<\/p>\n
upon judgment of the Delhi High Court in Vipul Overseas Private<\/p>\n
Limited v. Commissioner of Cus. ICD, TKD, new Delhi, (2006)<\/p>\n
203 ELT 366,      judgment of Gujarat High Court in Abhishek<\/p>\n
Fashions Private Limited v. Union of India, (2006) 202 ELT 762<\/p>\n
and judgments of this Court in Mapsa Tapes Private Limited v.<\/p>\n
Union of India,<\/a> (2006) 201 ELT 7, M\/s Bhagwati International<\/p>\n
Faridabad and another v. Union of India and others, CWP<\/p>\n
No.8672 of 2001, decided on 21.8.2002 and Sonia Overseas<\/p>\n
Private Limited v. Deputy director, Directorate, (2007) 216<\/p>\n
ELT 687.\n<\/p>\n
17.        Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand<\/p>\n
relied on judgment of this Court in T.L.Verma and Company<\/p>\n
Private Limited v. The Union of India and others, CWP<\/p>\n
No.12107 of 2008, decided on 22.8.2008, upholding the view that<\/p>\n
the goods being liable to confiscation under section 111(m) of the<\/p>\n
Act, condition of requiring indemnity bond equal to market value<\/p>\n
of goods could be justified.\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.13914 of 2008                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
18.         Before going into the rival contentions, we may deal<\/p>\n
with certain peripheral issues raised on behalf of the respondents.<\/p>\n
One of the objections was that this Court did not have territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction as only part of goods was seized at Panipat. The<\/p>\n
objection could not be seriously pressed when learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner referred to para 10 of the judgment of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots (supra). Other objection was that<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.2 crores was voluntarily deposited and its refund<\/p>\n
could not be sought. Mere voluntary deposit cannot operate as an<\/p>\n
estoppel if the amount is not due. As regards interference by this<\/p>\n
Court at this stage, we may only observe that if action of the<\/p>\n
respondents affects rights of the petitioner, such rights can<\/p>\n
certainly be enforced. It cannot be suggested that this Court has no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction against any illegal action at any stage. Though by way<\/p>\n
of self restraint, there is alternative remedy, this Court may not<\/p>\n
interfere, as observed in the judgments relied upon. Issue of release<\/p>\n
of goods being of urgent nature, if goods are illegally detained or<\/p>\n
harsh conditions are imposed, affected party can certainly invoke<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
19.         Power of effecting seizure under section 110 of the<\/p>\n
Customs Act can be exercised only on satisfaction that the goods<\/p>\n
were liable to confiscation. Under section 111(m) of the Act, goods
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
may be liable to confiscation on the ground of undervaluation also.<\/p>\n
Mere existence of such an extreme power does not render exercise<\/p>\n
of such power immune from challenge on the ground that the same<\/p>\n
was arbitrary. This Court may not at the interim stage interfere<\/p>\n
with the investigation or with the bonafide belief that it was<\/p>\n
necessary to effect seizure but again existence of such extreme<\/p>\n
power could not be a handle in the hands of officers of the Custom<\/p>\n
department to act arbitrarily without any rational basis. Thus,<\/p>\n
validity or otherwise of conditions for release will have to be<\/p>\n
decided on individual fact situation. Claim for securing against<\/p>\n
value of goods can be justified only if       prima facie case for<\/p>\n
confiscation exists, which has not been shown to exist in the<\/p>\n
present case. Mere existence of power of confiscation is not<\/p>\n
enough to justify harsh conditions unless case for confiscation is<\/p>\n
shown. Exercise of power to impose harsh conditions without valid<\/p>\n
justification will be arbitrary exercise of power hit by Articles 14,<\/p>\n
19 and 21 of the Constitution. We may refer to following<\/p>\n
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Distt. Registrar<\/p>\n
and Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank, AIR<\/a> 2005 SC 186,<\/p>\n
para 33, which have also been referred to in Mapsa Tapes (supra):<\/p>\n
     “33. Intrusion into privacy may be by – (1) legislative
\n     provisions, (2) administrative\/executive orders, and (3)
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
      judicial orders. The legislative intrusions must be tested on
\n      the touchstone of reasonableness as guaranteed by the
\n      Constitution and for that purpose the Court can go into the
\n      proportionality of the intrusion vis-a-vis the purpose sought
\n      to be achieved. (2) So far as administrative or executive
\n      action is concerned, it has again to be reasonable having
\n      regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. (3) As to
\n      Judicial warrants, the Court must have sufficient reason to
\n      believe that the search or seizure is warranted and it must
\n      keep in mind the extent of search or seizure necessary for the
\n      protection of the particular State interest. In addition, as
\n      stated earlier, common law recognized rare exceptions such
\n      as where warrantless searches could be conducted but these
\n      must be in good faith, intended to preserve evidence or
\n      intended to prevent sudden danger to person or property.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
20.        We may also refer to well known observations of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of scope of interference by<\/p>\n
this Court:-\n<\/p>\n
      “…..Needless to say that Courts in India, which function
\n      under a written Constitution which confers fundamental
\n      rights on citizens, have exercised, far greater powers than
\n      those exercised by Courts in England where there is no
\n      written constitution and there are no fundamental rignts.
\n      Therefore the decisions of courts in England as regards
\n      powers of the Courts, “surveillance”, as Lord Pearce calls it,
\n      or the control which the judiciary have over the Executive, as
\n      Lord Upiohn put it, indicate at least the minimum limit to
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                           13<\/span><\/p>\n
    which Courts in this country would be prepared to go in
\n    considering the validity of orders of the Government of its
\n    officers. In that sense the decision of the House of Lords in
\n    padfield v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food(1968
\n    AC 997)is a landmark in the history of the exercise by Courts
\n    of their power of surveillance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
    13. The Executive have to reach their decisions by taking into
\n    account relevant considerations. They should not refuse to
\n    consider relevant matter nor should take into account wholly
\n    irrelevant or extraneous consideration. They should not
\n    misdirect themselves on a point of law. Only such a decision
\n    will be lawful. The courts have power to see that the
\n    Executive acts lawfully. It is no answer to the exercise of that
\n    power to say that the Executive acted bona fide nor that they
\n    have bestowed painstaking consideration….”
\n    (Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa & Ors. AIR<\/a> 1975 SC
\n    2226)<\/p>\n
    “……That Court has power, by the prerogative writ of
\n    mandamus, to amend all errors which tend to the oppression
\n    of the subject or other misgovernment, and ought to be used
\n    when the law has provided no specific remedy, and justice
\n    and good government require that there ought to be one for
\n    the execution of the common law or the provisions of a
\n    statute…” (The Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
\n    Gian Prakash, New Delhi & anr. V. K.S. Jagannathan &
\n    anr. AIR 1987 SC 537).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 CWP No.13914 of 2008                                           14<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
    “……The Constitution enshrines and guarantees the rule of
\n    law and Art. 226 is designed to ensure that each and every
\n    authority in the State, including the Government acts bona
\n    fide and within the limits of its power and we consider that
\n    when a Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of
\n    power and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the
\n    Court to afford justice to the individual.( S, Partap Singh v.
\n    State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n    “……The basic requirement of Art. 14 is fairness in action
\n    by the State and we find it difficult to accept that the State
\n    can be permitted to act otherwise in any field of its activity,
\n    irrespective of the nature of its function, when it has the
\n    uppermost duty to be governed by the rule of law. Non-
\n    arbitrariness, in substance, is only fair play in action. We
\n    have no doubt that this obvious requirement must be satisfied
\n    by every action of the State or its instrumentality in order to
\n    satisfy the test of validity….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Xx         xx                xxx              xxxx
\n    ………all State actions ‘whatever their mien are amenable to
\n    constitutional limitations, the alternative being to permit them
\n    ‘to flourish as an imperium in imperio’….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Xx         XX                XXX                     XXX
\n    …… Where there is arbitrariness in State action, Art. 14
\n    springs in and judicial review strikes such an action down.
\n    Every action of the executive authority must be subject to
\n    rule of law and must be informed by reason. So, whatever be
\n    the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of
\n CWP No.13914 of 2008                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
      Art. 14………” ((Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. v. State of
\n      U.P. & ors. AIR 1991 SC 537).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n      “…..In requiring statutory powers to be exercised reasonably,
\n      in good faith, and on correct grounds, the Courts are still
\n      working within the bounds of the familiar principle of ultra
\n      vires. The Court assumes that Parliament cannot have
\n      intended to authorize unreasonable action which is therefore
\n      ultra vires and void…..” (Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. V.
\n      UOI, AIR<\/a> 1986 SC 872).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
21.         In the present case, we do not consider it necessary to<\/p>\n
examine the bonafides of the respondents in exercising power of<\/p>\n
effecting seizure without recording      any reasonable belief of<\/p>\n
liability of goods to confiscation before effecting seizure in view<\/p>\n
of limited prayer pressed. We do find that harsh conditions sought<\/p>\n
to be imposed can hardly stand scrutiny on the anvil of concept of<\/p>\n
reasonable procedure and reasonableness and fairness. It is well<\/p>\n
settled that even in case of existence of power, exercise thereof has<\/p>\n
to be fair and reasonable and consistent with the principle of<\/p>\n
proportionality. Neither any provisional assessment has been made<\/p>\n
nor any show cause notice has so far been given. Only allegation<\/p>\n
so far made is undervaluation.\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.13914 of 2008                                           16<\/span><\/p>\n
22.        Having regard to judgment of the Delhi High Court in<\/p>\n
Vipul Overseas and other orders of this Court referred to above<\/p>\n
and also in view of order Annexure P.14 passed by the respondents<\/p>\n
deciding to provisionally release the goods, we are of the view that<\/p>\n
goods are liable to be released. Condition of execution of<\/p>\n
indemnity bond equivalent to seizure value of goods or furnishing<\/p>\n
of bank guarantee equal to 10% of value of goods cannot be<\/p>\n
justified. There is nothing to show that even prima facie, goods are<\/p>\n
liable to confiscation.\n<\/p>\n
23.        Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits<\/p>\n
of this case at this stage, we quash condition Nos. 2 and 3 imposed<\/p>\n
in letter dated 25.7.2008, Annexure P.14 and direct release of<\/p>\n
goods on other conditions imposed in the above letter. We further<\/p>\n
direct that after adjusting the differential duty mentioned in the<\/p>\n
above letter, the rest of the money deposited by the petitioner be<\/p>\n
refunded to it.\n<\/p>\n
24.        The petition is disposed of.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                             (Adarsh Kumar Goel)\n                                                  Judge\n\n\nSeptember 5, 2008                              (Ajay Tewari)\n'gs'                                              Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited … vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008 CWP No.13914 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.13914 of 2008 Date of decision: 5 .8.2008 M\/s Kundan Rice Mills Limited Panipat Petitioner v. Union of India and others —–Respondent. CORAM:- HON’BLE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5368","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited ... vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited ... vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-01T09:34:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited … vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-01T09:34:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3199,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008\",\"name\":\"M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited ... vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-01T09:34:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited … vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited ... vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited ... vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-01T09:34:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited … vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-01T09:34:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008"},"wordCount":3199,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008","name":"M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited ... vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-01T09:34:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kundan-rice-mills-limited-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited … vs Unknown on 5 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5368","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5368"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5368\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}