HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1643 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1643 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1643 OF 2008 Shekhar Sharma ... Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.D. Ray for Petitioner. Mr.L.S. Shetty with Mr. M.S. Bhardwaj and Ms. Naveena Kumai and Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 27, 2008 DATED: MARCH 27, 2008 DATED: MARCH 27, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule. Heard forthwith. . It is the case of the Petitioner that they have imported consignment of button cells in respect of which Bill of entry was filed. The goods were duly assessed by the proper officer and the assessed duty was duly paid upon which the proper officer issued clearance under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1952. . While the goods were awaiting to be taken out, the officer from Preventive Commissionerate refused to allow the goods of the Petitioners to be taken out on the plea that retail sales prices declared by the Petitioners was not correct. The Petitioner has been demanding release of the goods till date as no steps have been taken to release the goods, the Petitioners approached this court for the reliefs as prayed for. . On behalf of the respondents, a reply has been filed by Mr. N.V. Aravindakshan, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (P), Nhava Sheva Preventive Unit, Nhava Sheva, Uran Dist. Raigad. It is set out therein that while monitoring the EDI system operating in the Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, the officers of Preventive Commissionerate observed that the Retail Sale Prices (RSP) declared for one of the consignment of button sales was unusually very low per piece as against the average market value. After detection and examination of the goods which was cleared by the importer was on the lower side, thereby evading the customs duty. The second consignment by the same importer was subjected to investigation by detaining the said consignment. It was found out based on market survey that the RSP declared by the importer was very low had the effect of evading huge amount of customs duty running upto Rs.32,06,176/-. The Proprietor of the importer firm,namely M/s. Archana Traders never appeared before the officers. The communication sent to him were returned undelivered. Further enquiry by the Officers reveal that there was no such firm or individual by name Shri. Shekhar Sharma. The other averments need not be referred to. . In Para 10, it is set out that in view of the facts that the goods in question are perishable in nature after a period of time, necessary proceedings under the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 were taken for expeditious disposal of the goods under detention. Accordingly, the inventory of the goods as per panchanama dated 23.10.2007 in respect of Container No. BHCU-3098070 and panchanama dated 30.10.2007 in respect of container No. KMTU-7248492 was taken in the presence of the Hon’ble Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. . On behalf of the Petitioners, supplementary affidavit has been filed. After hearing the parties, we asked the counsel for the Revenue as to whether any steps have been taken under Section 110 or there is power in the Customs Authorities to detain the goods in the manner that has been done after the goods were cleared under section 47 of the Customs Act. All that is pointed out to us is Section 110. However, no order passed under Section 110 has been placed before this court. In other words, there is no order. . In the event, the respondent Authorities wanted to detain the goods, they are duty bound to follow the procedure under law. In the instant case, they could have taken steps under Section 110. If such steps were taken, the party would have remedy under Section 110A. If no steps have been taken for confiscation after order under Section 110, the party would have remedy under section 110(2). No such steps have been taken and no explanation has been given except to say that the real party is not coming forward. . We are surprised at the approach of the respondents, for if the real party is not coming forward and if according to respondents, that party is not found, why have the Respondents till date taken no action. The Panchanama by itself would not be sufficient. . Considering the above and as the goods were cleared under Section 47, in our opinion, this petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions : (1) If no steps are taken as permitted in law within ten days from today, the respondents are directed to release the goods. (2) The Chief Commissioner of Customs Nhava Sheva to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the Officers who were dealing with the matter and after calling for explanation to file affidavit before the court on the enquiry conducted, and submit report of the proposed steps that will be taken. That report shall be submitted within three months from today. . Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)