IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 34971 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.P.MUSTHAFA CHELAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANOOR, KALADY P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.E.S.ABDUL GAFOOR. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1 COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 34971 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the illegality and sustainability of Ext.P4 proceedings passed by the respondent, contending that the petitioner had never given any consent to his wife and brother to have the matter compounded. The petitioner also disputes the extent of fixation of liability; specifically referring to the facts disclosed from Ext.P3 wherein the value of the 'cordless phone' has been shown as Rs.3,69,120/-. The specific case of the petitioner is that the goods were actually brought by him from abroad and that the goods were valued by the customs authorities at a total of Rs.2,46,080/- and they were released after paying the duty, redemption fee and penalty as prescribed, as evident from Ext.P1 and P2. 2. When the matter came up for consideration the last time, the learned Government Pleader was directed to ascertain the actual position with regard to the fixation of value of the 'cordless phone' and as to such other incriminating circumstance/discrepancies in the figures. The learned Government Pleader now submits that a mistake has crept in while passing Ext.P4 and hence it has been rectified and a modified order has been passed by the respondent on 08.06.2009, whereby the liability has been WPC NO. 34971/2008 2 brought down substantially. A copy of the said order is also placed for perusal of this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter can be closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the modified order with regard to the extent of liability fixed. It is also submitted that the challenge against compounding of the offence would stand withdrawn. 4. In the above circumstance, the Writ Petition is disposed of, reserving the rights of the petitioner to the above extent. It is also made clear that the respondents shall effect the refund of excess amount, within two months from the date of filing an application in this regard, in view of the modified order passed on 08.06.2009. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc