IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH APRIL 2011 / 6TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12498 of 2011(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. M/S.UJJWAL TRADERS, NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, MEHANDI BAG ROAD, MASKASATH, NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR RAJU NATHUJI DHUMAL. 2. M/S. SHREE SHIV, CHHOTALLA MADHAVJI BUILDINGS, MASKASAT ITWARI, NAGPUR, MAHARASTRA, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR PRAKASH SUCHAK. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.NELSON JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WELLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI - 682 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), CUSTOMS HOUSE, WELLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI - 682 009. BY ADV. SRI. JOHN VARGHESE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.12498 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners imported betel nuts through the Cochin Port. By Ext.P4 and P5 orders passed on 1.4.2011 and 8.4.2011 respectively, the second respondent fixed the value of the goods at Rs.34 per kg under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. By Ext.P4 order, the second respondent demanded payment of the sum of Rs.6,42,600 and by Ext.P5, the sum of Rs.19,82,880/- as duty. The petitioners had, in the meanwhile, pursuant to the provisional assessment made by the second respondent, paid one half of the said amount and also furnished bank guarantee for the remaining one half. Such an arrangement was made pursuant to the decisions of this Court evidenced by Exts.P1 and P3. The grievance voiced by the petitioners is that even before the period of limitation prescribed for filing appeals from Exts.P4 and P5 orders have expired, the first respondent has taken steps to wpc 12498/2011 2 invoke the bank guarantees furnished by them pursuant to the provisional orders passed by the first respondent. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the second respondent not to encash the bank guarantees until the statutory period of limitation prescribed for preferring appeals expires or if appeals have been preferred, until the stay petitions preferred in the appeals are disposed of. 2. I heard Sri P.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri John Varghese, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted, on instructions, that in view of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P3 order, the second respondent will not encash the bank guarantees until the statutory period of limitation prescribed for filing appeals from Exts.P4 and P5 expires and will encash the bank guarantees only if the petitioners do not prefer appeals within the said period. In the light of the said submission, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition recording the said undertaking and with a direction to the respondents to wpc 12498/2011 3 extend to the petitioners, the benefit of Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P3 order in the matter of invocation of the bank guarantees furnished by them. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE lgk